Became Member: 24th June 2005
Left House: 9th November 2019 (Death)
Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
These initiatives were driven by Lord Mawhinney, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
Lord Mawhinney has not introduced any legislation before Parliament
Lord Mawhinney has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
I refer the noble Lord to the reply I gave to Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 29 July (WA 304).
The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
The Government is committed to safeguarding all children and protecting them from the risk of harm and extremism, including in out-of-school settings.
The Prime Minister announced plans to introduce a new system of oversight for out-of-school education settings – such as supplementary schools and tuition centres – which teach children intensively, on 7 October 2015. These were confirmed in the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy which was published on 19 October. These plans to regulate out-of-school settings which teach children intensively were set out in the call for evidence which ran for 6 and a half weeks between 26 November and 11 January.
We are not proposing to regulate settings teaching children for a short period every week, such as Sunday schools or the Scouts, or one-off residential activities, such as a week-long summer camp. We are looking specifically at settings providing intensive education outside school where children could be spending more than six hours a week.
The call for evidence sought views on the appropriateness of seeking to prohibit teaching which undermines or is incompatible with fundamental British values. Now that the call for evidence has closed, we are considering carefully the responses received as we develop the proposals further.
We will be publishing our response to the call for evidence and setting out the next steps on the proposals in due course.
The Department for Exiting the EU will be conducting the UK’s negotiations to leave the European Union in support of the Prime Minister. We will be working closely with Parliament, devolved administrations, and a wide range of other interested parties.
Our relationship with Ireland is unique and we have already engaged extensively with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met in London on 26 July and the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU visited both Belfast and Dublin in early September to engage with government and business stakeholders.
We look forward to working closely with the Irish Government and other key stakeholders as we develop our approach, and to make the most of the opportunities for both countries.
The Government remains fully committed to delivering the important infrastructure projects it has set out, including delivering runway capacity on the timetable set out by Sir Howard Davies.
In the coming weeks the Government will carefully consider all of the evidence and should be in a position to announce a preferred scheme in the autumn.
All trusts will see an increase in overall funding, as we are supporting the National Health Service’s own plan by investing an additional £10 billion in real terms over the six years since the Five Year Forward View was published, including a £3.8 billion real terms increase this year alone. Official data on trusts’ exact income levels will not be known until the end of the financial year.
As part of the New Care Models Programme, NHS England is supporting local health and care commissioners and providers to come together to improve the health and care they provide. This includes the development of population-based care models known as integrated Primary and Acute Care Systems and Multispecialty Community Providers (MCPs). Where and how to develop new care models are decisions taken by local partnerships, in response to local conditions. The Programme is not directing or requiring the amalgamation of primary care centres.
There are 14 MCP vanguards, with a single organisation accountable for joined-up General Practitioner (GP) and community services and some specialist care, mental health services, and social care for a defined population. The building blocks of a MCP are the ‘care hubs’ of integrated teams. Each typically serves a community of around 30,000-50,000 people. These hubs are the practical, operational level of any model of accountable care provision. The wider the scope of services included in the MCP, the more hubs you may need to connect together to create sufficient scale. All 14 MCP vanguards now serve a minimum population of around 100,000.
The majority of GP practices are already working in practice groups or federations. This provides opportunities to expand services, stabilise practice income and work at scale, which has benefits for patients, practices and the wider system. These include economies of scale, quality improvement, workforce development, enhanced care and new services, resilience and system partnerships.
A new voluntary MCP contract will be introduced from April 2017, to integrate general practice services with community services and wider healthcare services. Measures from the GP Access Fund and vanguard sites that are currently piloting this approach, will be learned from to support mainstreaming of proven service improvements across all practices, and funding will be provided for local collaborations to support practices to implement new ways of working.
As part of the New Care Models Programme, NHS England is supporting local health and care commissioners and providers to come together to improve the health and care they provide. This includes the development of population-based care models known as integrated Primary and Acute Care Systems and Multispecialty Community Providers (MCPs). Where and how to develop new care models are decisions taken by local partnerships, in response to local conditions. The Programme is not directing or requiring the amalgamation of primary care centres.
There are 14 MCP vanguards, with a single organisation accountable for joined-up General Practitioner (GP) and community services and some specialist care, mental health services, and social care for a defined population. The building blocks of a MCP are the ‘care hubs’ of integrated teams. Each typically serves a community of around 30,000-50,000 people. These hubs are the practical, operational level of any model of accountable care provision. The wider the scope of services included in the MCP, the more hubs you may need to connect together to create sufficient scale. All 14 MCP vanguards now serve a minimum population of around 100,000.
The majority of GP practices are already working in practice groups or federations. This provides opportunities to expand services, stabilise practice income and work at scale, which has benefits for patients, practices and the wider system. These include economies of scale, quality improvement, workforce development, enhanced care and new services, resilience and system partnerships.
A new voluntary MCP contract will be introduced from April 2017, to integrate general practice services with community services and wider healthcare services. Measures from the GP Access Fund and vanguard sites that are currently piloting this approach, will be learned from to support mainstreaming of proven service improvements across all practices, and funding will be provided for local collaborations to support practices to implement new ways of working.
As part of the New Care Models Programme, NHS England is supporting local health and care commissioners and providers to come together to improve the health and care they provide. This includes the development of population-based care models known as integrated Primary and Acute Care Systems and Multispecialty Community Providers (MCPs). Where and how to develop new care models are decisions taken by local partnerships, in response to local conditions. The Programme is not directing or requiring the amalgamation of primary care centres.
There are 14 MCP vanguards, with a single organisation accountable for joined-up General Practitioner (GP) and community services and some specialist care, mental health services, and social care for a defined population. The building blocks of a MCP are the ‘care hubs’ of integrated teams. Each typically serves a community of around 30,000-50,000 people. These hubs are the practical, operational level of any model of accountable care provision. The wider the scope of services included in the MCP, the more hubs you may need to connect together to create sufficient scale. All 14 MCP vanguards now serve a minimum population of around 100,000.
The majority of GP practices are already working in practice groups or federations. This provides opportunities to expand services, stabilise practice income and work at scale, which has benefits for patients, practices and the wider system. These include economies of scale, quality improvement, workforce development, enhanced care and new services, resilience and system partnerships.
A new voluntary MCP contract will be introduced from April 2017, to integrate general practice services with community services and wider healthcare services. Measures from the GP Access Fund and vanguard sites that are currently piloting this approach, will be learned from to support mainstreaming of proven service improvements across all practices, and funding will be provided for local collaborations to support practices to implement new ways of working.
As part of the New Care Models Programme, NHS England is supporting local health and care commissioners and providers to come together to improve the health and care they provide. This includes the development of population-based care models known as integrated Primary and Acute Care Systems and Multispecialty Community Providers (MCPs). Where and how to develop new care models are decisions taken by local partnerships, in response to local conditions. The Programme is not directing or requiring the amalgamation of primary care centres.
There are 14 MCP vanguards, with a single organisation accountable for joined-up General Practitioner (GP) and community services and some specialist care, mental health services, and social care for a defined population. The building blocks of a MCP are the ‘care hubs’ of integrated teams. Each typically serves a community of around 30,000-50,000 people. These hubs are the practical, operational level of any model of accountable care provision. The wider the scope of services included in the MCP, the more hubs you may need to connect together to create sufficient scale. All 14 MCP vanguards now serve a minimum population of around 100,000.
The majority of GP practices are already working in practice groups or federations. This provides opportunities to expand services, stabilise practice income and work at scale, which has benefits for patients, practices and the wider system. These include economies of scale, quality improvement, workforce development, enhanced care and new services, resilience and system partnerships.
A new voluntary MCP contract will be introduced from April 2017, to integrate general practice services with community services and wider healthcare services. Measures from the GP Access Fund and vanguard sites that are currently piloting this approach, will be learned from to support mainstreaming of proven service improvements across all practices, and funding will be provided for local collaborations to support practices to implement new ways of working.
NHS Improvement continues to work with those providers who have not been able to agree control totals by the end of July. At present, 213 of 238 providers (89.5%) have an agreed a control total. Those providers who have been unable to agree a control total will not be able to access the sustainability and transformation fund.
NHS Improvement is currently consulting on a new oversight regime, which details proposals on how providers will be monitored in future and this will set out how variance from financial plan or control total will be managed.
NHS Improvement does not intend to replace the boards of those providers who do not achieve financial balance by the end of 2016/17. The organisation’s new oversight regime also sets out in detail how it proposes to monitor and support providers.
The Government’s Mandate to the NHS 2016-17, a copy of which is attached, confirms that the National Health Service must ensure that it balances its budget, including commissioners and providers living within their budgets. To support this, £1.8 billion of NHS England’s budget for 2016-17 will be allocated through the Sustainability and Transformation Fund to support providers, in particular emergency services, payable through commissioning or as other support.
NHS Improvement continues to work with those providers who have not been able to agree control totals by the end of July. At present, 213 of 238 providers (89.5%) have an agreed a control total. Those providers who have been unable to agree a control total will not be able to access the sustainability and transformation fund.
NHS Improvement is currently consulting on a new oversight regime, which details proposals on how providers will be monitored in future and this will set out how variance from financial plan or control total will be managed.
NHS Improvement does not intend to replace the boards of those providers who do not achieve financial balance by the end of 2016/17. The organisation’s new oversight regime also sets out in detail how it proposes to monitor and support providers.
The Government’s Mandate to the NHS 2016-17, a copy of which is attached, confirms that the National Health Service must ensure that it balances its budget, including commissioners and providers living within their budgets. To support this, £1.8 billion of NHS England’s budget for 2016-17 will be allocated through the Sustainability and Transformation Fund to support providers, in particular emergency services, payable through commissioning or as other support.
NHS Improvement continues to work with those providers who have not been able to agree control totals by the end of July. At present, 213 of 238 providers (89.5%) have an agreed a control total. Those providers who have been unable to agree a control total will not be able to access the sustainability and transformation fund.
NHS Improvement is currently consulting on a new oversight regime, which details proposals on how providers will be monitored in future and this will set out how variance from financial plan or control total will be managed.
NHS Improvement does not intend to replace the boards of those providers who do not achieve financial balance by the end of 2016/17. The organisation’s new oversight regime also sets out in detail how it proposes to monitor and support providers.
The Government’s Mandate to the NHS 2016-17, a copy of which is attached, confirms that the National Health Service must ensure that it balances its budget, including commissioners and providers living within their budgets. To support this, £1.8 billion of NHS England’s budget for 2016-17 will be allocated through the Sustainability and Transformation Fund to support providers, in particular emergency services, payable through commissioning or as other support.
All National Health Service providers, including community pharmacies, are required to provide information governance assurances to the NHS on an annual basis. These assurances are provided through completion of an online assessment tool, the NHS Information Governance Toolkit.
Community pharmacies and dispensing appliance contractors currently have to assess themselves against the following requirements:
Information Governance Management
- Responsibility for Information Governance has been assigned to an appropriate member, or members, of staff;
- There is an information governance policy that addresses the overall requirements of information governance;
- All contracts (staff, contractor and third party) contain clauses that clearly identify information governance responsibilities; and
- All staff members are provided with appropriate training on information governance requirements.
Confidentiality and Data Protection Assurance
- All person identifiable data processed outside of the United Kingdom complies with the Data Protection Act 1998 and Department of Health guidelines;
- Consent is appropriately sought before personal information is used in ways that do not directly contribute to the delivery of care services and objections to the disclosure of confidential personal information are appropriately respected;
- There is a publicly available and easy to understand information leaflet that informs patients/service users how their information is used, who may have access to that information, and their own rights to see and obtain copies of their records; and
- There is a confidentiality code of conduct that provides staff with clear guidance on the disclosure of personal information.
Information Security Assurance
- Monitoring and enforcement processes are in place to ensure NHS national application Smartcard users comply with the terms and conditions of use;
- There is an information asset register that includes all key information, software, hardware and services;
- Unauthorised access to the premises, equipment, records and other assets is prevented;
- The use of mobile computing systems is controlled, monitored and audited to ensure their correct operation and to prevent unauthorised access;
- There are documented plans and procedures to support business continuity in the event of power failures, system failures, natural disasters and other disruptions;
- There are documented incident management and reporting procedures;
- There are appropriate procedures in place to manage access to computer-based information systems; and
- All transfers of hardcopy and digital personal and sensitive information have been identified, mapped and risk assessed; technical and organisational measures adequately secure these transfers.
The Department does not hold this information. However, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has provided the following information.
The GPhC undertakes inspections of all registered pharmacies in Great Britain. The vast majority of pharmacies currently receive a routine inspection every three to four years. Inspectors will, in addition, visit pharmacies to investigate concerns from members of the public or health professionals.
Since November 2013 the GPhC has conducted 6,814 routine inspections of pharmacy premises to assess them against its standards. During every inspection GPhC inspectors seek evidence from the pharmacy team that standards relating to the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public are met. These standards cover the storage of confidential and private information and the physical and governance arrangements for ensuring patients can have private conversations with pharmacy professionals.
Of the 6,814 inspections that have been carried out by the GPhC since November 2013, in 421 (6.2%) cases pharmacy premises were found to have failed one or more of the above three standards:
- 274 did not meet standard 1.7 (Information is managed to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services);
- 174 did not meet standard 3.2 (Premises protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services); and
- 73 did not meet standard 5.3 (Equipment and facilities are used in a way that protects the privacy and dignity of the patients and the public who receive pharmacy services).
When pharmacy premises have not met one or more of the standards, they are required by the GPhC to complete and implement an improvement action plan.
In addition, the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments recently approved legislation which includes powers to issue an improvement notice or disqualify a pharmacy from the register for a failure to meet the standards. This will improve the GPhC’s ability to protect patients and improve the quality of the pharmacy services they receive.
In circumstances where the GPhC finds a registered professional’s fitness to practise is called into question it will investigate and can bring proceedings against that individual.
The Department does not hold this information. However, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has provided the following information.
The GPhC undertakes inspections of all registered pharmacies in Great Britain. The vast majority of pharmacies currently receive a routine inspection every three to four years. Inspectors will, in addition, visit pharmacies to investigate concerns from members of the public or health professionals.
Since November 2013 the GPhC has conducted 6,814 routine inspections of pharmacy premises to assess them against its standards. During every inspection GPhC inspectors seek evidence from the pharmacy team that standards relating to the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public are met. These standards cover the storage of confidential and private information and the physical and governance arrangements for ensuring patients can have private conversations with pharmacy professionals.
Of the 6,814 inspections that have been carried out by the GPhC since November 2013, in 421 (6.2%) cases pharmacy premises were found to have failed one or more of the above three standards:
- 274 did not meet standard 1.7 (Information is managed to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services);
- 174 did not meet standard 3.2 (Premises protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services); and
- 73 did not meet standard 5.3 (Equipment and facilities are used in a way that protects the privacy and dignity of the patients and the public who receive pharmacy services).
When pharmacy premises have not met one or more of the standards, they are required by the GPhC to complete and implement an improvement action plan.
In addition, the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments recently approved legislation which includes powers to issue an improvement notice or disqualify a pharmacy from the register for a failure to meet the standards. This will improve the GPhC’s ability to protect patients and improve the quality of the pharmacy services they receive.
In circumstances where the GPhC finds a registered professional’s fitness to practise is called into question it will investigate and can bring proceedings against that individual.
The Department does not hold this information. However, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has provided the following information.
The GPhC undertakes inspections of all registered pharmacies in Great Britain. The vast majority of pharmacies currently receive a routine inspection every three to four years. Inspectors will, in addition, visit pharmacies to investigate concerns from members of the public or health professionals.
Since November 2013 the GPhC has conducted 6,814 routine inspections of pharmacy premises to assess them against its standards. During every inspection GPhC inspectors seek evidence from the pharmacy team that standards relating to the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public are met. These standards cover the storage of confidential and private information and the physical and governance arrangements for ensuring patients can have private conversations with pharmacy professionals.
Of the 6,814 inspections that have been carried out by the GPhC since November 2013, in 421 (6.2%) cases pharmacy premises were found to have failed one or more of the above three standards:
- 274 did not meet standard 1.7 (Information is managed to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services);
- 174 did not meet standard 3.2 (Premises protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services); and
- 73 did not meet standard 5.3 (Equipment and facilities are used in a way that protects the privacy and dignity of the patients and the public who receive pharmacy services).
When pharmacy premises have not met one or more of the standards, they are required by the GPhC to complete and implement an improvement action plan.
In addition, the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments recently approved legislation which includes powers to issue an improvement notice or disqualify a pharmacy from the register for a failure to meet the standards. This will improve the GPhC’s ability to protect patients and improve the quality of the pharmacy services they receive.
In circumstances where the GPhC finds a registered professional’s fitness to practise is called into question it will investigate and can bring proceedings against that individual.
The Department does not hold this information. However, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has provided the following information.
The GPhC undertakes inspections of all registered pharmacies in Great Britain. The vast majority of pharmacies currently receive a routine inspection every three to four years. Inspectors will, in addition, visit pharmacies to investigate concerns from members of the public or health professionals.
Since November 2013 the GPhC has conducted 6,814 routine inspections of pharmacy premises to assess them against its standards. During every inspection GPhC inspectors seek evidence from the pharmacy team that standards relating to the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public are met. These standards cover the storage of confidential and private information and the physical and governance arrangements for ensuring patients can have private conversations with pharmacy professionals.
Of the 6,814 inspections that have been carried out by the GPhC since November 2013, in 421 (6.2%) cases pharmacy premises were found to have failed one or more of the above three standards:
- 274 did not meet standard 1.7 (Information is managed to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services);
- 174 did not meet standard 3.2 (Premises protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services); and
- 73 did not meet standard 5.3 (Equipment and facilities are used in a way that protects the privacy and dignity of the patients and the public who receive pharmacy services).
When pharmacy premises have not met one or more of the standards, they are required by the GPhC to complete and implement an improvement action plan.
In addition, the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments recently approved legislation which includes powers to issue an improvement notice or disqualify a pharmacy from the register for a failure to meet the standards. This will improve the GPhC’s ability to protect patients and improve the quality of the pharmacy services they receive.
In circumstances where the GPhC finds a registered professional’s fitness to practise is called into question it will investigate and can bring proceedings against that individual.
The Department does not hold this information. However, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has provided the following information.
The GPhC undertakes inspections of all registered pharmacies in Great Britain. The vast majority of pharmacies currently receive a routine inspection every three to four years. Inspectors will, in addition, visit pharmacies to investigate concerns from members of the public or health professionals.
Since November 2013 the GPhC has conducted 6,814 routine inspections of pharmacy premises to assess them against its standards. During every inspection GPhC inspectors seek evidence from the pharmacy team that standards relating to the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public are met. These standards cover the storage of confidential and private information and the physical and governance arrangements for ensuring patients can have private conversations with pharmacy professionals.
Of the 6,814 inspections that have been carried out by the GPhC since November 2013, in 421 (6.2%) cases pharmacy premises were found to have failed one or more of the above three standards:
- 274 did not meet standard 1.7 (Information is managed to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services);
- 174 did not meet standard 3.2 (Premises protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services); and
- 73 did not meet standard 5.3 (Equipment and facilities are used in a way that protects the privacy and dignity of the patients and the public who receive pharmacy services).
When pharmacy premises have not met one or more of the standards, they are required by the GPhC to complete and implement an improvement action plan.
In addition, the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments recently approved legislation which includes powers to issue an improvement notice or disqualify a pharmacy from the register for a failure to meet the standards. This will improve the GPhC’s ability to protect patients and improve the quality of the pharmacy services they receive.
In circumstances where the GPhC finds a registered professional’s fitness to practise is called into question it will investigate and can bring proceedings against that individual.
Pharmacy owners and superintendent pharmacists of bodies corporate are responsible for meeting the General Pharmaceutical Council’s standards for registered pharmacies and must decide how best to do so, including managing information to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public, within their pharmacies.
There are a number of different ways in which pharmacy professionals and the wider pharmacy team may receive patient information. Information is included on prescriptions, or may be shared by patients when seeking care from a pharmacy. In addition, information may be stored in patient medication records or other records.
Through its inspections, the General Pharmaceutical Council seeks assurance from the pharmacy team about how they maintain the confidentiality, privacy and dignity of patients and the public. These assurances can be provided through a number of different means, for example restricted password access to patient information, appropriate training of staff or making sure patients can have conversations with members of the pharmacy team in private.
All National Health service providers, including community pharmacies, also need to provide information governance assurances to the NHS on an annual basis.
Pharmacy owners and superintendent pharmacists of bodies corporate are responsible for meeting the General Pharmaceutical Council’s standards for registered pharmacies and must decide how best to do so, including managing information to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public, within their pharmacies.
There are a number of different ways in which pharmacy professionals and the wider pharmacy team may receive patient information. Information is included on prescriptions, or may be shared by patients when seeking care from a pharmacy. In addition, information may be stored in patient medication records or other records.
Through its inspections, the General Pharmaceutical Council seeks assurance from the pharmacy team about how they maintain the confidentiality, privacy and dignity of patients and the public. These assurances can be provided through a number of different means, for example restricted password access to patient information, appropriate training of staff or making sure patients can have conversations with members of the pharmacy team in private.
All National Health service providers, including community pharmacies, also need to provide information governance assurances to the NHS on an annual basis.
Pharmacy owners and superintendent pharmacists of bodies corporate are responsible for meeting the General Pharmaceutical Council’s standards for registered pharmacies and must decide how best to do so, including managing information to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public, within their pharmacies.
There are a number of different ways in which pharmacy professionals and the wider pharmacy team may receive patient information. Information is included on prescriptions, or may be shared by patients when seeking care from a pharmacy. In addition, information may be stored in patient medication records or other records.
Through its inspections, the General Pharmaceutical Council seeks assurance from the pharmacy team about how they maintain the confidentiality, privacy and dignity of patients and the public. These assurances can be provided through a number of different means, for example restricted password access to patient information, appropriate training of staff or making sure patients can have conversations with members of the pharmacy team in private.
All National Health service providers, including community pharmacies, also need to provide information governance assurances to the NHS on an annual basis.
It is not practical to eradicate Lyme disease in the United Kingdom through treatment of human cases, therefore no cost estimate has been made. The disease is endemic in much of the small mammal and bird population in the UK, and is spread to humans by the bite of infected ticks which have fed on these animals. The number of human cases can be reduced by raising public awareness of how to avoid tick bites, and by environmental measures in public places to reduce the long grass and scrub which harbour ticks.
The number of laboratory confirmed cases of Lyme disease in England and Wales varies annually, in 2013 there were 878 and in 2014 there were 730, but the majority of diagnoses are made clinically by general practitioners and those figures are not recorded. Patients with late or complicated Lyme disease may be diagnosed in a variety of specialist clinics, and the numbers are not recorded. Based on the clinical information supplied with the laboratory request, only a small proportion of the annual number of cases fall into this category.
The Health Protection Research Unit of the University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) has funding from the National Institute of Health Research for research into Lyme disease, covering diagnostics and biomarkers and public awareness. PHE is working on clinically linked studies for diagnostics with the Czech Republic, as no single centre in the UK has sufficient patients for a suitable study; funding for this work is not yet in place. PHE undertakes limited studies on ticks and Lyme disease in the UK. The Research Councils fund some additional work on ticks and the environment.
It is not practical to eradicate Lyme disease in the United Kingdom through treatment of human cases, therefore no cost estimate has been made. The disease is endemic in much of the small mammal and bird population in the UK, and is spread to humans by the bite of infected ticks which have fed on these animals. The number of human cases can be reduced by raising public awareness of how to avoid tick bites, and by environmental measures in public places to reduce the long grass and scrub which harbour ticks.
The number of laboratory confirmed cases of Lyme disease in England and Wales varies annually, in 2013 there were 878 and in 2014 there were 730, but the majority of diagnoses are made clinically by general practitioners and those figures are not recorded. Patients with late or complicated Lyme disease may be diagnosed in a variety of specialist clinics, and the numbers are not recorded. Based on the clinical information supplied with the laboratory request, only a small proportion of the annual number of cases fall into this category.
The Health Protection Research Unit of the University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) has funding from the National Institute of Health Research for research into Lyme disease, covering diagnostics and biomarkers and public awareness. PHE is working on clinically linked studies for diagnostics with the Czech Republic, as no single centre in the UK has sufficient patients for a suitable study; funding for this work is not yet in place. PHE undertakes limited studies on ticks and Lyme disease in the UK. The Research Councils fund some additional work on ticks and the environment.
It is not practical to eradicate Lyme disease in the United Kingdom through treatment of human cases, therefore no cost estimate has been made. The disease is endemic in much of the small mammal and bird population in the UK, and is spread to humans by the bite of infected ticks which have fed on these animals. The number of human cases can be reduced by raising public awareness of how to avoid tick bites, and by environmental measures in public places to reduce the long grass and scrub which harbour ticks.
The number of laboratory confirmed cases of Lyme disease in England and Wales varies annually, in 2013 there were 878 and in 2014 there were 730, but the majority of diagnoses are made clinically by general practitioners and those figures are not recorded. Patients with late or complicated Lyme disease may be diagnosed in a variety of specialist clinics, and the numbers are not recorded. Based on the clinical information supplied with the laboratory request, only a small proportion of the annual number of cases fall into this category.
The Health Protection Research Unit of the University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) has funding from the National Institute of Health Research for research into Lyme disease, covering diagnostics and biomarkers and public awareness. PHE is working on clinically linked studies for diagnostics with the Czech Republic, as no single centre in the UK has sufficient patients for a suitable study; funding for this work is not yet in place. PHE undertakes limited studies on ticks and Lyme disease in the UK. The Research Councils fund some additional work on ticks and the environment.
It is not practical to eradicate Lyme disease in the United Kingdom through treatment of human cases, therefore no cost estimate has been made. The disease is endemic in much of the small mammal and bird population in the UK, and is spread to humans by the bite of infected ticks which have fed on these animals. The number of human cases can be reduced by raising public awareness of how to avoid tick bites, and by environmental measures in public places to reduce the long grass and scrub which harbour ticks.
The number of laboratory confirmed cases of Lyme disease in England and Wales varies annually, in 2013 there were 878 and in 2014 there were 730, but the majority of diagnoses are made clinically by general practitioners and those figures are not recorded. Patients with late or complicated Lyme disease may be diagnosed in a variety of specialist clinics, and the numbers are not recorded. Based on the clinical information supplied with the laboratory request, only a small proportion of the annual number of cases fall into this category.
The Health Protection Research Unit of the University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) has funding from the National Institute of Health Research for research into Lyme disease, covering diagnostics and biomarkers and public awareness. PHE is working on clinically linked studies for diagnostics with the Czech Republic, as no single centre in the UK has sufficient patients for a suitable study; funding for this work is not yet in place. PHE undertakes limited studies on ticks and Lyme disease in the UK. The Research Councils fund some additional work on ticks and the environment.
The Department is not imposing a target nor a timescale for reducing the annual cost of National Health Service agency appointments, because to do so in an arbitrary manner might put patients at risk. However, the Government expects NHS organisations, who are responsible for the recruitment and retention of their staff, to have a firm grip on their workforce planning and management including how much they spend on agency staff. NHS organisations have access to a wide range of advice, guidance and best practice available to help them with this. One of the new conditions we have recently introduced for those trusts receiving financial help under section 42 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is to reduce their use of and the amount they spend on agency staff.
NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority have advised that this information is not held centrally.
In the context of hospitals currently declaring major incidents, this refers to an emergency situation where particular facilities or resources are under pressure and special arrangements are required to maintain the delivery of some services. It would be for the organisation that had declared the emergency to de-escalate it, in line with its incident response plan.
The use of major incidents has been part of the National Health Service planning process since 2005, and they have been declared in every year since then.
There is no central definition but a major incident in a hospital might be called in:
- times of severe pressure such as winter periods or an infectious disease outbreak; and
- a period of particular local pressure such as dealing with a road traffic accident.
NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority have advised that this information is not held centrally.
In the context of hospitals currently declaring major incidents, this refers to an emergency situation where particular facilities or resources are under pressure and special arrangements are required to maintain the delivery of some services. It would be for the organisation that had declared the emergency to de-escalate it, in line with its incident response plan.
The use of major incidents has been part of the National Health Service planning process since 2005, and they have been declared in every year since then.
There is no central definition but a major incident in a hospital might be called in:
- times of severe pressure such as winter periods or an infectious disease outbreak; and
- a period of particular local pressure such as dealing with a road traffic accident.
NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority have advised that this information is not held centrally.
In the context of hospitals currently declaring major incidents, this refers to an emergency situation where particular facilities or resources are under pressure and special arrangements are required to maintain the delivery of some services. It would be for the organisation that had declared the emergency to de-escalate it, in line with its incident response plan.
The use of major incidents has been part of the National Health Service planning process since 2005, and they have been declared in every year since then.
There is no central definition but a major incident in a hospital might be called in:
- times of severe pressure such as winter periods or an infectious disease outbreak; and
- a period of particular local pressure such as dealing with a road traffic accident.
The voluntary approach of working with industry is achieving real reductions in calories, including sugar. Examples include:
- the Co-operative Group taking out added sugar from its high juices, removing 1.5 billion kcals per year;
- Tesco removing two billion calories from its juices, following on from the one billion removed in 2012; and
- Sainsbury’s reducing sugar in its Own Brand chilled juices by 83.5 tonnes a year.
The eight supermarkets currently signed up to the calorie reduction pledge are:
- Aldi Stores;
- ASDA;
- the Co-operative Group;
- Marks and Spencer;
- Morrisons;
- Sainsbury’s;
- Tesco; and
- Waitrose.
Companies signed up to the calorie reduction pledge have committed to support and enable their customers to eat and drink fewer calories through a range of actions, including product/menu reformulation, reviewing portion sizes, education and information, and actions to shift the marketing mix towards lower calorie options. The emphasis of the pledge is on overall calorie reduction; however, cutting sugar forms an important part of that strategy.
Companies report each year on their activities to reduce calories, including sugar, and these returns are published on the Responsibility Deal website along with their Delivery Plans. An independent evaluation of the Responsibility Deal is under way and due to report early 2016.
The voluntary approach of working with industry is achieving real reductions in calories, including sugar. Examples include:
- the Co-operative Group taking out added sugar from its high juices, removing 1.5 billion kcals per year;
- Tesco removing two billion calories from its juices, following on from the one billion removed in 2012; and
- Sainsbury’s reducing sugar in its Own Brand chilled juices by 83.5 tonnes a year.
The eight supermarkets currently signed up to the calorie reduction pledge are:
- Aldi Stores;
- ASDA;
- the Co-operative Group;
- Marks and Spencer;
- Morrisons;
- Sainsbury’s;
- Tesco; and
- Waitrose.
Companies signed up to the calorie reduction pledge have committed to support and enable their customers to eat and drink fewer calories through a range of actions, including product/menu reformulation, reviewing portion sizes, education and information, and actions to shift the marketing mix towards lower calorie options. The emphasis of the pledge is on overall calorie reduction; however, cutting sugar forms an important part of that strategy.
Companies report each year on their activities to reduce calories, including sugar, and these returns are published on the Responsibility Deal website along with their Delivery Plans. An independent evaluation of the Responsibility Deal is under way and due to report early 2016.
The voluntary approach of working with industry is achieving real reductions in calories, including sugar. Examples include:
- the Co-operative Group taking out added sugar from its high juices, removing 1.5 billion kcals per year;
- Tesco removing two billion calories from its juices, following on from the one billion removed in 2012; and
- Sainsbury’s reducing sugar in its Own Brand chilled juices by 83.5 tonnes a year.
The eight supermarkets currently signed up to the calorie reduction pledge are:
- Aldi Stores;
- ASDA;
- the Co-operative Group;
- Marks and Spencer;
- Morrisons;
- Sainsbury’s;
- Tesco; and
- Waitrose.
Companies signed up to the calorie reduction pledge have committed to support and enable their customers to eat and drink fewer calories through a range of actions, including product/menu reformulation, reviewing portion sizes, education and information, and actions to shift the marketing mix towards lower calorie options. The emphasis of the pledge is on overall calorie reduction; however, cutting sugar forms an important part of that strategy.
Companies report each year on their activities to reduce calories, including sugar, and these returns are published on the Responsibility Deal website along with their Delivery Plans. An independent evaluation of the Responsibility Deal is under way and due to report early 2016.
The voluntary approach of working with industry is achieving real reductions in calories, including sugar. Examples include:
- the Co-operative Group taking out added sugar from its high juices, removing 1.5 billion kcals per year;
- Tesco removing two billion calories from its juices, following on from the one billion removed in 2012; and
- Sainsbury’s reducing sugar in its Own Brand chilled juices by 83.5 tonnes a year.
The eight supermarkets currently signed up to the calorie reduction pledge are:
- Aldi Stores;
- ASDA;
- the Co-operative Group;
- Marks and Spencer;
- Morrisons;
- Sainsbury’s;
- Tesco; and
- Waitrose.
Companies signed up to the calorie reduction pledge have committed to support and enable their customers to eat and drink fewer calories through a range of actions, including product/menu reformulation, reviewing portion sizes, education and information, and actions to shift the marketing mix towards lower calorie options. The emphasis of the pledge is on overall calorie reduction; however, cutting sugar forms an important part of that strategy.
Companies report each year on their activities to reduce calories, including sugar, and these returns are published on the Responsibility Deal website along with their Delivery Plans. An independent evaluation of the Responsibility Deal is under way and due to report early 2016.
Through the Government’s voluntary partnership with industry, eight supermarket chains are currently signed up to the calorie reduction pledge and are taking actions to enable their customers to consume fewer calories. Five of these supermarkets are taking direct action to either cut sugar or provide sugar-free or sugar-reduced products.
Ten supermarket chains have committed to provide clear information on the front of food and drink products, including sugar content.
The Government is committed to reducing overweight and obesity through a range of actions involving consumers and a wide range of stakeholders. The role of industry in continuing to reduce calories, including sugar, through the voluntary partnership is a key component of the Government’s approach.
The final report of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition on Carbohydrates and Health and Public Health England evidence and advice on sugar reduction, both due in Spring 2015, will inform the Government’s next steps.
The Secretary of State met with Asda, Sainsbury’s and Tesco on 7 October 2013 to discuss voluntary arrangements to help their customers’ adopt a healthier diet, including action to reduce their sugar intake. Other major retailers were unable to attend.
In addition, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health (Jane Ellison) visited a Tesco store on 13 March 2014, with regard in particular to diabetes.
Eight supermarket chains have committed to take voluntary action to support and enable their customers to eat and drink fewer calories. A table giving each supermarket chain’s calorie reduction pledge annual returns for 2013 and 2014 has been placed in the Library.
Annual returns provided by companies are published on the Responsibility Deal website each summer. An independent evaluation of the whole Responsibility Deal is under way. The Department does not monitor the returns against delivery plans. If a company fails to provide an annual return it may be removed as a signatory to that pledge.
This information is not held by the Department.
Through the Public Health Responsibility Deal calorie reduction pledge, the Government encourages retailers to support and enable their customers to eat and drink fewer calories through a range of actions, which can include shifting the marketing mix towards lower calorie options.
Currently eight supermarket chains are signed up the calorie reduction pledge and are taking actions to enable their customers to eat and drink fewer calories, and ten supermarket chains are signed up to provide clear information on the front of food and drink products, including sugar content.
Details of all Ministerial meetings with external parties are published quarterly in arrears on the Department's website. The latest publication which covers meetings up until December 2013 can be found on the Department's website:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministerial-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-external-meetings-2012-to-2013?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Eight supermarket chains are currently signed up the Public Health Responsibility Deal calorie reduction pledge and are taking actions to enable their customers to eat and drink fewer calories.
The information requested is provided in the following tables.
Year | Total spend on Community Services (National Health Service and non-NHS providers) |
£ Million | |
2011-12 | 9,119 |
2012-13 | 9,749 |
|
|
Year | Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTCs) | Other Private Sector Providers | Voluntary Sector | Other e.g. Local Authority (LA) |
Percentage of total spend | Percentage of total spend | Percentage of total spend | Percentage of total spend | |
2011-12 | 0.33% | 14.08% | 1.85% | 9.79% |
2012-13 | 0.39% | 17.72% | 1.91% | 11.01% |
Source: PCT Audited Summarisation Schedules 2006-07 to 2012-13
Notes:
The expenditure details spend on community health services except community services for learning difficulties, mental illness and maternity.
Information is collected on expenditure on ‘non-NHS bodies’ which includes LAs, voluntary and independent sector providers.
In terms of this data, non-NHS bodies are defined as ISTCs, Other Private Sector Providers, Voluntary Sector bodies and Other. The ‘Other’ category includes LAs and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland NHS bodies.
Relations with France on migration issues continue to be strong. At the end of July, we hosted a joint inter-ministerial conference in London to discuss how we can tackle migration pressures upstream (including from Syria) together. The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), have been in close touch with their French counterparts in recent weeks. We share a moral responsibility to help refugees and Britain is playing its part. UK ships remain in the Mediterranean and have rescued 6,700 people. The UK is contributing more than £1billion to tackle the humanitarian crisis in Syria and we will resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.
The Government has not yet agreed with the Northern Ireland Executive how the block grant adjustment will be calculated if corporation tax rate-setting powers are devolved
Legislative change enacted in, The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Review of Sentencing) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 (SR 249/2013) allows the appeal of unduly lenient sentences for fuel fraud to the Court of Appeal. It came into force on 9 December 2013.
All 22 convictions related to offences prosecuted under Section 170(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 for fraudulent evasion of duty. Further details area as follows:
· 15 of the cases were prosecuted for two offences under this Act
· 12 of these convictions resulted in suspended sentences totalling 104 months, with each being suspended for a period of time between 12 and 36 months
· One case resulted in the defendant being bound over
· In nine cases fines of up to £4,000 were imposed - totalling £11,700; and in two of these the defendant was given a period of up to 26 weeks to pay the fine or an additional custodial sentence would be imposed
· One conviction was converted into a time to pay agreement due to the ill health of the defendant
· One Confiscation Order was made for £98,000
· One Compensation Order was made for £500
It would not be prudent to provide the further detailed information requested as they could lead to identification of the individuals concerned and jeopardise the safety of the defendants and their immediate families.
No assessment has been made of how much of the diesel bought in the Republic of Ireland and brought into Northern Ireland is illegally produced or smuggled. However, tax gap figures estimate the market share for all illicit diesel in Northern Ireland at 12-13% in 2011-12 and negligible for petrol.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measuring-tax-gaps-tables
HMRC fights fraud on a wide range of fronts, from special units performing thousands of roadside checks to raiding laundering plants. The UK has recently announced, jointly with Ireland, an improved new marker for rebated fuel, which will make it much harder to launder marked fuel and sell it at a profit.
Legislative change enacted in, The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Review of Sentencing) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 (SR 249/2013) allows the appeal of unduly lenient sentences for fuel fraud to the Court of Appeal. It came into force on 9 December 2013.
All 22 convictions related to offences prosecuted under Section 170(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 for fraudulent evasion of duty. Further details area as follows:
· 15 of the cases were prosecuted for two offences under this Act
· 12 of these convictions resulted in suspended sentences totalling 104 months, with each being suspended for a period of time between 12 and 36 months
· One case resulted in the defendant being bound over
· In nine cases fines of up to £4,000 were imposed - totalling £11,700; and in two of these the defendant was given a period of up to 26 weeks to pay the fine or an additional custodial sentence would be imposed
· One conviction was converted into a time to pay agreement due to the ill health of the defendant
· One Confiscation Order was made for £98,000
· One Compensation Order was made for £500
It would not be prudent to provide the further detailed information requested as they could lead to identification of the individuals concerned and jeopardise the safety of the defendants and their immediate families.
No assessment has been made of how much of the diesel bought in the Republic of Ireland and brought into Northern Ireland is illegally produced or smuggled. However, tax gap figures estimate the market share for all illicit diesel in Northern Ireland at 12-13% in 2011-12 and negligible for petrol.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measuring-tax-gaps-tables
HMRC fights fraud on a wide range of fronts, from special units performing thousands of roadside checks to raiding laundering plants. The UK has recently announced, jointly with Ireland, an improved new marker for rebated fuel, which will make it much harder to launder marked fuel and sell it at a profit.
Legislative change enacted in, The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Review of Sentencing) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 (SR 249/2013) allows the appeal of unduly lenient sentences for fuel fraud to the Court of Appeal. It came into force on 9 December 2013.
All 22 convictions related to offences prosecuted under Section 170(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 for fraudulent evasion of duty. Further details area as follows:
· 15 of the cases were prosecuted for two offences under this Act
· 12 of these convictions resulted in suspended sentences totalling 104 months, with each being suspended for a period of time between 12 and 36 months
· One case resulted in the defendant being bound over
· In nine cases fines of up to £4,000 were imposed - totalling £11,700; and in two of these the defendant was given a period of up to 26 weeks to pay the fine or an additional custodial sentence would be imposed
· One conviction was converted into a time to pay agreement due to the ill health of the defendant
· One Confiscation Order was made for £98,000
· One Compensation Order was made for £500
It would not be prudent to provide the further detailed information requested as they could lead to identification of the individuals concerned and jeopardise the safety of the defendants and their immediate families.
No assessment has been made of how much of the diesel bought in the Republic of Ireland and brought into Northern Ireland is illegally produced or smuggled. However, tax gap figures estimate the market share for all illicit diesel in Northern Ireland at 12-13% in 2011-12 and negligible for petrol.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measuring-tax-gaps-tables
HMRC fights fraud on a wide range of fronts, from special units performing thousands of roadside checks to raiding laundering plants. The UK has recently announced, jointly with Ireland, an improved new marker for rebated fuel, which will make it much harder to launder marked fuel and sell it at a profit.
The UK will continue to use the established UNHCR process for identifying and resettling refugees. We are in discussion with the UNHCR on the precise criteria for selecting cases for the expanded resettlement scheme. However, we are clear that the most vulnerable cases will be prioritised and we will only resettle those people that we and the UNHCR agree require resettlement in a country like the UK.
We intend to resettle 20,000 Syrians in need of protection during this Parliament. We will continue to work closely with the UNHCR to identify appropriate cases, prioritising the most vulnerable. As the expanded scheme is based on need and reliant on the UNHCR and other partners to make it work, it is not possible or appropriate to set any sort of annual target, but we are clear that we want to help people as quickly as possible.
Free movement of people between the United Kingdom and Ireland within the Common Travel Area has existed since 1923 and therefore predates both the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the subsequent British-Irish Agreement. The free movement of people between the two jurisdictions is not provided for by either Agreement.
The public health grant is provided to give local authorities the funding needed to discharge their public heath responsibilities. The total allocation for 2015-16 was £2.80 billion. All details of this grant and the allocations which were made can be found at - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ring-fenced-public-health-grants-to-local-authorities-2013-14-and-2014-15.