First elected: 5th May 2005
Left House: 3rd May 2017 (Defeated)
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 Mark Durkan, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.
Mark Durkan has not been granted any Adjournment Debates
Mark Durkan has not introduced any legislation before Parliament
Feeding Products for Babies and Children (Advertising and Promotion) Bill 2016-17
Sponsor - Alison Thewliss (SNP)
Government Services (Telecommunication Charges) Bill 2016-17
Sponsor - Chris Stephens (SNP)
Public Authority (Accountability) Bill 2016-17
Sponsor - Andy Burnham (Lab)
The Government made clear in the Spending Review its commitment to science and research. We will protect science resource funding in real terms from its current level of £4.7 billion per annum for the rest of the Parliament. Growth in the ring fence will be used to invest in a new £1.5 billion Global Challenges Research Fund for UK science to pioneer new ways of tackling global problems. As well as increasing resource spending for science, we are investing in new scientific infrastructure on a record scale, delivering on the £6.9 billion science capital commitment in our manifesto to provide the infrastructure and funding to keep the UK globally competitive.
The allocation of budgets to individual funding bodies, programmes and facilities has yet to be determined. As per previous spending rounds this allocation process will take place over the coming months.
The Government recognises the potential for the bio-plastics sector to contribute to a circular economy. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is engaged with a range of businesses in the bio plastic industry including via the Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Association and is working to help promote the potential growth of that sector. The EU 2020 strategy and the funding programmes that support that initiative offer opportunities for the UK. BIS is actively promoting and facilitating engagement and participation in the Horizon 2020 Programme via the Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN).
I note the report by the Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Association into the future potential impacts of a bio-plastics industry in the UK.
The Government delivers a range of policies across the business landscape – including research funding and innovation - that will be helpful in supporting the development of this sector. At the recent Autumn Statement, it was confirmed that science funding of £4.7 billion will be protected in real terms over the Parliament, and we will protect the Catapult network to support innovative firms and sectors.
It is not possible to monitor the number of people with a learning disability who (a) register to vote and (b) vote in the forthcoming election as no record is made of disability when registering to vote or when voting.
The Cabinet Office is funding Mencap to increase the representation of people with learning disabilities on the electoral register. This includes engagement activity highlighting to disabled people why they should register to vote and how to do so.
Since July 2013 when the timetable was published, the government has received a number of representations from MPs, Peers, organisations and individuals. These representations have concerned whether the timetable should go ahead as well as the length of time required to implement the various stages it contains. Representations from organisations in particular have included both those in favour of and those opposed to the introduction of legislation.
We hugely value the contribution of EU and international staff. The UK will maintain its status as a global centre for research and innovation, including for medical research. There will be no immediate changes in circumstances for EU citizens working or studying in the UK.
My Rt Hon Friend the Prime Minister has been clear that during negotiations we want to protect the status of EU nationals already living here, and the only circumstances in which that would not be possible is if British citizens’ rights in European member states were not protected in return.
2014 figures for the number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Hunting Act 2004 are set out, by police force area in England and Wales, in table 1.
Table 1: Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Hunting Act 2004 (1), by police force area, England and Wales, 2014(2)(3) | ||
Police force area | Proceeded against | Found guilty |
Avon and Somerset | 5 | - |
Bedfordshire | - | - |
Cambridgeshire | 3 | - |
Cheshire | - | - |
Cleveland | 2 | - |
Cumbria | 2 | - |
Derbyshire | - | - |
Durham | 3 | 3 |
Essex | - | - |
Gloucestershire | - | - |
Hampshire | - | - |
Hertfordshire | - | - |
Humberside | 17 | 13 |
Kent | 3 | 3 |
Lancashire | 5 | 5 |
Leicestershire | 1 | - |
Lincolnshire | 4 | 2 |
Merseyside | - | - |
Metropolitan Police | - | - |
Norfolk | 4 | - |
Northumbria | 3 | 3 |
North Yorkshire | - | - |
Nottinghamshire | - | - |
South Yorkshire | - | - |
Staffordshire | - | - |
Suffolk | 7 | 4 |
Surrey | - | - |
Sussex | - | - |
Thames Valley | 2 | 2 |
West Mercia | 3 | - |
West Yorkshire | - | - |
Wiltshire | - | - |
England and Wales | 64 | 35 |
(1) Includes Section 1,3(1)(2), 5(1)(a)(b)(c)(d), 5 (2)(a)(b)(c) and 6 of Hunting Act 2004. | ||
(2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. | ||
(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. | ||
Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. | ||
Ref: PQ3270 | ||
The Government is committed to tackling crimes against wildlife. The UK National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities, including those relating to badger persecution and poaching, which are UK wildlife crime priorities. The Unit also provides assistance to police forces when required.
The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in England and Wales, in 2014, can be viewed in table 1.
The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Deer Act 1991, in England and Wales, in 2014, can be viewed in table 2.
No proceedings were brought to court for offences under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in 2014.
Table 1
Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992(1), England and Wales, 2014(2)(3) | ||
Proceeded against | Found guilty | |
England and Wales | 25 | 18 |
(1) Includes all Sections under Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
| ||
Table 2
Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Deer Act 1991(1), England and Wales, 2014(2) (3) | ||
Proceeded against | Found guilty | |
England and Wales | 2 | - |
(1) Includes all Sections under Deer Act 1991 (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
| ||
The Government is committed to tackling crimes against wildlife. The UK National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities, including those relating to badger persecution and poaching, which are UK wildlife crime priorities. The Unit also provides assistance to police forces when required.
The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in England and Wales, in 2014, can be viewed in table 1.
The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Deer Act 1991, in England and Wales, in 2014, can be viewed in table 2.
No proceedings were brought to court for offences under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in 2014.
Table 1
Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992(1), England and Wales, 2014(2)(3) | ||
Proceeded against | Found guilty | |
England and Wales | 25 | 18 |
(1) Includes all Sections under Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
| ||
Table 2
Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Deer Act 1991(1), England and Wales, 2014(2) (3) | ||
Proceeded against | Found guilty | |
England and Wales | 2 | - |
(1) Includes all Sections under Deer Act 1991 (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
| ||
The Government is committed to tackling crimes against wildlife. The UK National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities, including those relating to badger persecution and poaching, which are UK wildlife crime priorities. The Unit also provides assistance to police forces when required.
The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in England and Wales, in 2014, can be viewed in table 1.
The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Deer Act 1991, in England and Wales, in 2014, can be viewed in table 2.
No proceedings were brought to court for offences under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in 2014.
Table 1
Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992(1), England and Wales, 2014(2)(3) | ||
Proceeded against | Found guilty | |
England and Wales | 25 | 18 |
(1) Includes all Sections under Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
| ||
Table 2
Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Deer Act 1991(1), England and Wales, 2014(2) (3) | ||
Proceeded against | Found guilty | |
England and Wales | 2 | - |
(1) Includes all Sections under Deer Act 1991 (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
| ||
As a government we recognise the contribution that our world-class research base makes to our economy and wellbeing. We will always welcome those with the skills, the drive and the expertise to make a positive contribution. If we are to win in the global marketplace, we must win the global battle for talent.
We place huge value on maintaining the UK’s unique arrangements with Ireland and the friendly, cooperative relationship we have built of recent years. The open border for people and businesses has served us well and no-one wants to see a return to the borders of the past. There is a very strong commitment from the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive as well as ourselves to see that this does not happen.
As a government we recognise the contribution that our world-class research base makes to our economy and wellbeing. We will always welcome those with the skills, the drive and the expertise to make a positive contribution. If we are to win in the global marketplace, we must win the global battle for talent.
We place huge value on maintaining the UK’s unique arrangements with Ireland and the friendly, cooperative relationship we have built of recent years. The open border for people and businesses has served us well and no-one wants to see a return to the borders of the past. There is a very strong commitment from the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive as well as ourselves to see that this does not happen.
The proposal by the Government of South Sudan to increase the cost of work permits is a further obstruction of the delivery of humanitarian aid by the government. If these fees are imposed it will have serious consequences for the agencies that are doing all they can to tackle the famine that has been declared. Together with our international partners we raised these issues with the South Sudanese First Vice President on 15 March, and made clear that the government of South Sudan has a responsibility to stop the suffering of its own people, and allow full humanitarian access across the country.
In the Civil Society Review we set out how we will engage with Non-Governmental Organisations in the future, for example we will host an annual civil society open day and UK regional roadshows to ensure we involve a broader range of organisations. NGOs contributed views to the Multilateral Development Review and Bilateral Development Review. Ministers and officials also consulted BOND, the body that represents UK international development NGOs. We will continue to work closely with them and will discuss the next steps on both reviews in due course.
Leaving the EU means we will want to take our own decisions about how to deliver the policy objectives previously targeted by EU funding. Over the coming months we will consult closely with stakeholders to ensure that any ongoing funding commitments best help the world’s poorest and deliver value for money for UK taxpayers.
The €46 million ‘Better Migration Management’ programme is part of the EU’s joint work on addressing unmanaged flows from Africa under the Horn of Africa component of the €1.9 billion EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. The UK has made no direct financial contribution to this programme. However, we have committed to a contribution of €3 million to the Horn of Africa component of the Trust Fund overall. That is in addition to the UK’s underlying contribution to the Trust Fund, which amounts to approximately 15% of the EU’s total €1.8 billion contribution, predominantly drawn from the European Development Fund.
The humanitarian situation in South Sudan remains dire. More than 2.4 million people are displaced; over 785,000 of them to neighbouring countries as refugees. 4.8 million South Sudanese people, almost half of the population, are at risk of severe food insecurity. Although famine has not yet been declared, there is a looming risk in parts of Unity State. Through DFID, the UK remains the second largest bilateral donor to South Sudan.
The UK has played a leading role in the development of the Education Cannot Wait fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises, which was launched at the World Humanitarian Summit on 23rd May. The UK has committed to provide £30million in support over two years to the new fund as a founding donor, which was announced by the International Development Secretary at the fund’s launch.
HMG deplores the fact that armed conflict can expose students and teaching personnel to harm. We believe that better implementation of, and better compliance with, existing International Humanitarian Law will provide the best protection for civilians, including children, in all situations of armed conflict.
DFID’s development support is improving millions of peoples’ lives in Ethiopia by supporting basic services for the poorest; promoting job creation, particularly for women; tackling female genital mutilation and early child marriage which ruins lives; and boosting people’s nutrition and ability to cope with natural shocks.
DFID does not have programmes that specifically target those affected by resettlement, nor does DFID fund resettlement programmes in the Omo Valley or elsewhere in Ethiopia. However since 2011, DFID, alongside other donors in Ethiopia, has visited resettlement sites, including in South Omo, to view implementation against international good practice. We have found no evidence of forced resettlement, but we have concerns about the level of consultation, speed of implementation and respect for international good practices on resettlement. We have regularly raised these concerns with the Government of Ethiopia. Further information can be accessed on the Development Assistance Group website: www.dagethiopia.org
The UK Government has made a commitment to improve the nutrition of 50 million people by 2020, including in lower middle income countries. Those being helped includes children under five, breast feeding women, women of childbearing age and adolescent girls. This commitment builds on our previous 2010 commitment to reach 20 million children under five and pregnant and breast feeding women with nutrition programmes by 2015. By mid 2015 we had reached 28.6 million people.
Further details can be found on Development Tracker: http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/
DFID recognises the value of early childhood investments and supports a range of early years’ research and investments, including integrated investments in nutrition, child health, water, sanitation, hygiene and education. Assessment of the impact of these programmes on the strength of health systems are made on a case by case basis at country level. Decisions on country and multilateral investments take account of context, programme objectives, the strength of evidence and analysis of the delivery channels that offer the best value for money.
The lack of development in the east of Sudan has driven chronic humanitarian needs which continue to be of concern. According to the latest Ministry of Health national nutrition survey, the east of Sudan has some of the highest rates of malnutrition in the country, in many places exceeding emergency thresholds. High rates of malnutrition are of even greater concern as they increase the vulnerability of children to disease and the likelihood of fatality. The east of Sudan has been particularly affected by the ongoing measles outbreak.
There is also a long term refugee population of some 92,000 people who continue to require the services of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to ensure that they receive protection and their humanitarian needs are met.
The UK will not provide any financial aid to central government or local authorities in South Sudan in 2014-15. The UK will provide around £150m in aid for South Sudan in 2014/15, which is channelled through UN agencies, commercial contractors and NGOs to deliver both humanitarian support and longer term development programmes.
The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) provides an effective coordination mechanism for clinical research. Member States provide funding which is matched by the European Commission, and funding is also provided from third parties (e.g. philanthropic foundations and the private sector). .
EDCTP has played an important role in research into a new tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, by increasing the amount of TB vaccine trial activity in countries with a high burden of TB. This includes capacity building and developing sustainable infrastructures which will facilitate TB vaccine trials in the future, as new products emerge. EDTCP has also helped to improve paediatric formulations of antiretroviral treatment (ART). The findings from EDCTP-funded research were used by WHO to develop treatment guidelines for children. This resulted in the first fixed-dose combination antiretroviral drug being made available for a large number of HIV-infected children.
In 2013, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) member state partners agreed to commit Euros 125million to the second phase of the EDCTP programme. Members also agreed to commit up to a further Euros 1.5billion of in-kind contributions, such as support for infrastructure and staff time. This was a significant increase in contributions and investment from the first phase of the programme.
Progress made by EDCTP members towards meeting these commitments will be published in the business plan. Progress will be monitored by the European Commission and by the General Assembly, which is currently chaired by the UK.
The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) provides an effective coordination mechanism for clinical research, making effective use of available funding, and coordinating technical and research expertise from a variety of countries and sectors over a ten year period. This long-term coordination is important, given the nature of the research the EDCTP supports.
The European Commission undertakes impact assessments of EDCTP, in line with the requirements of the European Parliament and European Council. The UK has used these assessments for the ongoing process of review of spend and to judge the value and impact of the programme.
The UK remains extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in eastern Sudan. The needs assessment carried out to inform the 2014 UN response showed that health and nutrition indicators were above emergency thresholds in many locations and access to services was extremely poor. A UK funded UNICEF national nutrition survey revealed large numbers of children were suffering from acute malnutrition especially in Kassala and Red Sea State. These findings have been incorporated into the recently revised Humanitarian Strategic Response Plan for 2014 which is used for determining where donor resources are allocated.
The UN’s Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) plays an important role in funding the humanitarian response in Sudan using the Strategic Response Plan as a guide. In 2014 the UK contributed £17m to the CHF. We are also investing in longer term programmes to build the resilience of communities and improve access to water and sanitation in eastern Sudan.
Sexual violence has been widespread during the conflict. We have pressed the Government and Opposition to act to prevent sexual violence. Our humanitarian programmes help protect vulnerable women and girls, and provide support for case management for the victims of sexual and gender based violence.
DFID adheres to Development Co-Operation Directorate (OACD-DAC) expenditure coding requirements to allow comparison across donor spending towards attainment of the Millennium Development Goal targets. This measures against coding titles as have been internationally agreed. Only coding titles as have been internationally agreed can be individually disaggregated by DFID systems.
The UK has a strong history of protecting human rights and promoting our values globally. We will in due course consider all options in the design of future bilateral trade and investment agreements. We will of course continue to honour our international human rights obligations.
The Department for Transport has no powers to oversee or direct Competent Harbour Authorities in the execution of their duties to provide pilotage services in accordance with the 1987 Pilotage Act.
It is a Competent Harbour Authority which has the statutory duty to determine what pilotage services need to be provided to secure the safety of navigation of vessels operating in their waters. Where a ruling on the legality of its actions is needed, that is a matter for the court rather than the Department.
There are no plans to make the Port Marine Safety Code mandatory. The non-statutory status of the Code is vital to its success, enabling port operators to apply industry-agreed good practice flexibly in ways most appropriate to the size and operations of their facility.
Under the Pilotage Act 1987, it is Competent Harbour Authority’s duty to keep under review what pilotage services are needed for safe navigation and to provide those services accordingly, for which a proper assessment of the interests of safety is relevant as spelt out in the Sea Empress case.
The information requested is shown in the table below.
Prognosis | Support Group | Work Related Activity Group |
All | 2,121,500 | 1,564,500 |
3 months | 225,400 | 344,900 |
6 months | 475,900 | 334,000 |
12 months | 339,700 | 226,900 |
18 months | 272,600 | 152,600 |
Not for 2 years | 120,500 | 131,300 |
Not in longer term | 545,100 | 257,400 |
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published on 25 January 2017 the clinical guideline Cerebral palsy in under 25s: assessment and management NICE guideline (NG62).
This provides recommendations for clinicians on the importance of enhanced clinical and developmental follow-up for children up to two years of age who are at increased risk of developing cerebral palsy, and the need for referral for an urgent assessment following the early recognition of possible signs of cerebral palsy.
The Department does not provide specific guidance on the use of paediatric speech and language therapy, paediatric physiotherapy and paediatric occupational therapy for children and young people with cerebral palsy.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on the management of spasticity in under 19s includes recommendations on the provision of physiotherapy and/or occupational therapy.
In addition, at the request of the Department, NICE published, on 25 January 2017, the clinical guideline Cerebral palsy in under 25s: assessment and management.
The available treatment option for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who stop responding to trastuzumab (Herceptin) is trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla).
Trastuzumab emtansine is currently only available through the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) in England. However, on 29 December 2016 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published draft guidance that did not recommend its use in the National Health Service in England. If the final NICE guidance remains negative, from 90 days after the publication of the final guidance, patients already receiving the drug via the CDF will continue to receive it until the patient and their prescribing physician consider it appropriate to discontinue treatment. However, no new patients will be able to receive it from that point and the treatment options for those patients will still be standard cytotoxic chemotherapy.
Upon the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the Department commissioned the Cost Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurement (CEMIPP) Review. The Government expects to receive the CEMIPP report later this summer.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is currently carrying out technology appraisals of nivolumab for two lung cancer indications:
(i) previously treated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. The expected publication date for this final guidance is September 2016.
(ii) Previously treated locally advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy in adults. The publication date for this final guidance is to be confirmed.
The NICE is also appraising pembrolizumab for treating advanced or recurrent PD-L1 positive non-small cell lung cancer after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy [ID840]. The expected publication date for the final guidance on this appraisal is January 2017.
Commissioners are legally required to fund drugs and treatments recommended in the NICE technology appraisal guidance within three months of its final guidance being issued. In the absence of guidance from the NICE, it is for commissioners to make decisions on whether to fund new medicines based on an assessment of the available evidence.
The Department is currently in discussion with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on models that delink company revenues from usage in the context of pricing of antibiotics.
On 24 September, the NHS England Board agreed the development of a Personalised Medicine Strategy for the National Health Service. Personalised medicine is a move away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the treatment and care of patients with a particular condition. It uses emergent approaches in areas such as diagnostic tests, functional genomic technologies, molecular pathways, data analytics and real time monitoring of conditions to better manage patients’ health and to target therapies to achieve the best outcomes in the management of a patient’s disease or predisposition to disease. The high-level vision and strategy is to create a Personalised Medicine service in the NHS embracing four overarching principles: the prediction and prevention of disease; more precise diagnoses; targeted and personalised interventions; and a more participatory role for patients.
The independent Cancer Taskforce’s five-year strategy for cancer, Achieving World-Class Outcomes (July 2015), recommends improvements across the cancer pathway, with the aim of improving survival rates.
NHS England is currently working with partners across the health system to determine how best to take forward the recommendations of the Cancer Taskforce. NHS England has appointed Cally Palmer as National Cancer Director to lead on implementation, as well as new cancer vanguards to redesign care and patient experience. She has set up a new Cancer Transformation Board to implement the strategy, and this met for the first time on Monday 25 January. There will also be a Cancer Advisory Group, chaired by Sir Harpal Kumar, to oversee and scrutinise the work of the Transformation Board.
The Accelerated Access Review, chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, will make recommendations to government on reforms to accelerate access for NHS patients to transformative new medicines and technologies making our country the best place in the world to design, develop and deploy these products. The terms of the reference for the review focus on faster access to innovations, which may include personalised medicines for the treatment of colorectal cancer.
The Government is committed to ensuring that patients have access to new and effective treatments on terms that represent value to the National Health Service and the taxpayer.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body responsible for providing advice to the NHS on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of health technologies. NHS commissioners are legally required to fund treatments recommended by NICE technology appraisal guidance, ensuring consistent access to clinically and cost effective drugs across England.
The Accelerated Access Review, chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, will make recommendations to government later this spring on reforms to accelerate access for NHS patients to innovative medicines, medical technologies, diagnostics and digital products.
NHS England has advised that it plans to publish analyses of variation in use of Cancer Drug Fund (CDF) drug indications according to geographical areas in the spring of 2016 and then routinely in the future for the new CDF.