Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

147558

registered interest
date	10/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Cancer
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to develop and support the cancer screening programme.
tabling member constituency	Mid Derbyshire
tabling member printed	Pauline Latham
uin	214020
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The NHS Cancer Screening Programmes screen millions of people each year in order to detect cancer or abnormalities which could develop into cancer if left undetected and untreated. They are supported by a national co-ordinating team and regional quality assurance teams in Public Health England (PHE).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>On the specific programmes, NHS England and PHE are working together to set up screening centres for Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) for 55 year-olds as an addition to the current NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Our commitment is to have BSS rolled out to 60% of screening centres in England by the end of March 2015, and to all screening centres in England by the end of 2016. In addition, as part of the original programme, PHE are piloting a new form of home testing kit (faecal immunochemical testing - FIT) which is easier to use and potentially more accurate than the current faecal occult blood (FOB) test used in the programme.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme has developed considerably with the use of digital mammography in screening clinics and the extensions to the age range for screening women, including the current randomised controlled trial screening 47-49 and 71-73 year-old women. Around 97.1% of women who have had invasive breast cancer detected by screening are alive five years later and over three quarters of the women whose cancer is detected by the programme do not need chemotherapy.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The NHS Cervical Screening Programme is currently piloting the use of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as the primary screen for cervical disease in order to achieve better, more personalised outcomes for women. Through early detection and treatment the NHS Cervical Screening Programme can prevent around 75% of cervical cancers developing; where an early cancer is found, women with cervical cancer diagnosed by screening have a better chance of being cured than those who present with symptoms.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>All NHS screening programmes are based on National Screening Committee recommendations using the best evidence available.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison question first answered 18/11/2014 14:08:12 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
tabling member	4025 label Biography information for Mrs Pauline Latham

147560

registered interest
date	10/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Cancer
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to support the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative.
tabling member constituency	Mid Derbyshire
tabling member printed	Pauline Latham
uin	214021
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>Through <em>Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer </em>(2011), the Government has invested an additional £750 million in improving cancer services, including over £450 million supporting earlier diagnosis. Earlier diagnosis is an essential element in delivering against the Government’s ambition to save an additional 5,000 lives from cancer per year by 2014-15.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Through the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative, the Department continues to work in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), NHS England, Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Cancer Support and other public and voluntary sector organisations to support centrally led Be Clear on Cancer symptom awareness campaigns and work to support general practitioners and primary care.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>We know that diagnosis at an early stage of a cancer’s development leads to improved survival chances. An indicator on the proportion of cancers diagnosed at an early stage is therefore a useful proxy for assessing improvements in cancer survival rates. This is why the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) includes an indicator on the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 and 2. <br> <br></p><p> </p><p>PHE has published the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 or 2 as part of PHOF. This has also been published as part of the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcome Indicator Set. PHE’s National Cancer Intelligence Network is using these staging data to examine the impact of the Be Clear on Cancer campaigns on any shift in the stage at diagnosis.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison grouped question UIN 214022 question first answered 18/11/2014 16:00:23 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
tabling member	4025 label Biography information for Mrs Pauline Latham

147561

registered interest
date	10/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Cancer
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make it an objective of his Department to reduce late stage (3 and 4) cancer diagnosis and increase the proportion of cancers diagnosed at early stage (1 and 2).
tabling member constituency	Mid Derbyshire
tabling member printed	Pauline Latham
uin	214022
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>Through <em>Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer </em>(2011), the Government has invested an additional £750 million in improving cancer services, including over £450 million supporting earlier diagnosis. Earlier diagnosis is an essential element in delivering against the Government’s ambition to save an additional 5,000 lives from cancer per year by 2014-15.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Through the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative, the Department continues to work in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), NHS England, Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Cancer Support and other public and voluntary sector organisations to support centrally led Be Clear on Cancer symptom awareness campaigns and work to support general practitioners and primary care.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>We know that diagnosis at an early stage of a cancer’s development leads to improved survival chances. An indicator on the proportion of cancers diagnosed at an early stage is therefore a useful proxy for assessing improvements in cancer survival rates. This is why the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) includes an indicator on the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 and 2. <br> <br></p><p> </p><p>PHE has published the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 or 2 as part of PHOF. This has also been published as part of the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcome Indicator Set. PHE’s National Cancer Intelligence Network is using these staging data to examine the impact of the Be Clear on Cancer campaigns on any shift in the stage at diagnosis.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison grouped question UIN 214021 question first answered 18/11/2014 16:00:23 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
tabling member	4025 label Biography information for Mrs Pauline Latham

106168

registered interest
date	04/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, on 12 September (HC Deb, col 750W), what evidence would be required to predict the cohort of patients that may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; whether the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome would be part of any such evidence base; and, if not, why not.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL2640
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that, with regard to the Human Fertility journal article, it has nothing to add to the answers given to the noble Lord on 22 October 2008 (Official Report WA110), 9 July 2012 (Official Report, cols. WA 202-3) and 8 January 2013 (WA23). Data regarding the cohort of patients described in Fertility and Sterility (volume 101, issue 4, pages 967–973) were not shared with the HFEA. However, the HFEA has access to the published article.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It would be for clinicians and professional bodies to decide on the evidence required to predict the cohort of patients that may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and to treat symptoms in accordance with guidelines.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As outlined in the answer given on 23 Jan 2013 (Official Report WA217), the HFEA would refer to evidence based guidelines, produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, on these matters.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe grouped question UIN HL2690 question first answered 18/11/2014 12:39:40 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

106169

registered interest
date	04/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, on 11 September (HC Deb, cols 664–5W) and on 12 September (HC Deb, col 750W), how it is anticipated that proposed interventions for mitochondrial disease would not impact on the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL2641
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>Further to answers given on 12 September (HC Deb, col 750w) the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that if mitochondrial donation was permitted in treatment it is not anticipated that this would impact on the incidence of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome (OHSS). This is because any egg donation or collection processes necessary for mitochondrial donation would be carried out at HFEA licensed fertility clinics in line with the guidance outlined in the HFEA Code of Practice. Mitochondrial donation raises no new issues in respect of OHSS as the women who may donate eggs will be subject to the same protocols as those donating to fertility treatment.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 17/11/2014 12:08:24 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

106170

registered interest
date	04/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	IVF
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, on 1 September (HC Deb, cols 119–122), how many of the mitochondrial diseases listed in Annex D of the consultation document entitled "Mitochondrial Donation" are included in the Human DNA Polymerase Gamma Mutation Database maintained by the National Institutes of Health in the USA; and what assessment they have made of the causal relationship between mutations affecting DNA Polymerase Gamma and disease-associated mitochondrial DNA mutations.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL2642
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The mitochondrial diseases listed in Annex D of the “<em>Mitochondrial Donation</em>” consultation document are diseases caused by an inherited mutation in mitochondrial DNA that results in faulty mitochondria. In contrast, the mitochondrial diseases listed in the Human DNA Polymerase Gamma Mutation Database are secondary disorders whereby faulty mitochondria arise from a nuclear gene defect. As such the primary mitochondrial DNA diseases listed in Annex D are distinct from those diseases listed in the Human DNA Polymerase Gamma Database, caused by a nuclear gene mutation.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The proposed mitochondrial donation techniques would only be used for patients that have inherited mitochondrial DNA mutations and could not be used for those diseases in which faulty mitochondria arise from a nuclear gene mutation, as this mutation would still be inherited by the resulting child from the parents nuclear DNA.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 17/11/2014 12:09:54 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

106172

registered interest
date	04/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	IVF
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 23 January 2013 (HL4388), whether the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority still considers that multiple pregnancy poses "the single greatest health risk associated with fertility treatment"; what records they hold on foetal reduction in the first trimester and early in the second trimester; what assessment they have made of the impact of such procedures on the incidence of complications otherwise associated with multiple pregnancy; and what was the average mortality rate of (1) singleton, (2) twin, and (3) triplet, pregnancies in the United Kingdom over each year of the past decade for which records are available.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL2643
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that it and all of the relevant professional bodies support the <em>One at a time</em> initiative, which aims to reduce the incidence of multiple births following in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). The consensus statement signed in 2011 states that “Multiple births is the single biggest risk to the health and welfare of children born following fertility treatment”:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.oneatatime.org.uk/images/2011-05_Multiple_Births_Consensus_Statement_-_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">www.oneatatime.org.uk/images/2011-05_Multiple_Births_Consensus_Statement_-_FINAL.pdf</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The HFEA holds records on foetal reductions carried out in the first trimester and early in the second trimester following each cycle of IVF or donor insemination in the UK.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>When developing its policy on multiple births the HFEA commissioned an Expert Group on Multiple Births after IVF, which concluded that the prevention of multiple pregnancies through single embryo transfer should be preferred to multifetal pregnancy reduction.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p>Information on average mortality rates for singleton, twin and triplet pregnancies is not collected centrally. The information that is available is shown in the following table.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="13"><p> </p><p> </p><p>Stillbirths and linked infant deaths rates: babies born in each year 2002 to 2011, plurality,</p><p>England and Wales<sup> 1,2,3,4</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td colspan="3"><p>Stillbirth</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td colspan="3"><p>Infant</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>Year</p></td><td><p>Singletons</p></td><td><p>Twins</p></td><td><p>Triplets</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Singletons</p></td><td><p>Twins</p></td><td><p>Triplets</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2002</p></td><td><p>5.3</p></td><td><p>15.7</p></td><td><p>44.6</p></td><td> </td><td><p>4.7</p></td><td><p>23.1</p></td><td><p>40.6</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2003</p></td><td><p>5.4</p></td><td><p>17.6</p></td><td><p>52.5</p></td><td> </td><td><p>4.7</p></td><td><p>23.5</p></td><td><p>63.7</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2004</p></td><td><p>5.4</p></td><td><p>14.8</p></td><td><p>51.8</p></td><td> </td><td><p>4.5</p></td><td><p>21.6</p></td><td><p>61.8</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2005</p></td><td><p>5.1</p></td><td><p>13.2</p></td><td><p>29.7</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td><p>4.4</p></td><td><p>23.5</p></td><td><p>54.1</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2006</p></td><td><p>5.1</p></td><td><p>11.8</p></td><td><p>24.2</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td><p>4.4</p></td><td><p>21.7</p></td><td><p>67.0</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2007</p></td><td><p>5.0</p></td><td><p>11.2</p></td><td><p>19.7</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td><p>4.2</p></td><td><p>19.9</p></td><td><p>50.3</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2008</p></td><td><p>4.9</p></td><td><p>11.6</p></td><td><p>28.7</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td><p>4.1</p></td><td><p>20.0</p></td><td><p>55.2</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>4.9</p></td><td><p>12.2</p></td><td><p>31.5</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td><p>4.0</p></td><td><p>20.1</p></td><td><p>34.9</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>4.9</p></td><td><p>11.4</p></td><td><p>15.8</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td><p>3.8</p></td><td><p>18.4</p></td><td><p>62.1</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>5.0</p></td><td><p>10.9</p></td><td><p>15.5</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td><p>3.7</p></td><td><p>18.8</p></td><td><p>21.7</p></td><td><p>u</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><p> </p><p><em> </em></p><p><em>Notes:</em></p><p> </p><p>1 Stillbirths per 1,000 live births and stillbirths. Infant deaths per 1,000 live births.</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><p>2 Excludes babies born to non-residents.</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="12" rowspan="2"><p>3 Rates based on between 3 and 19 deaths (inclusive) are distinguished by 'u' as a warning that their reliability may be affected by the small number of events.</p><p>4 Information is not available for Scotland and Northern Ireland.</p></td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><p><em> </em></p><p><em>Source:</em> Office for National Statistics</p></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 17/11/2014 12:11:34 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

106173

registered interest
date	04/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	IVF
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will place in the Library of the House a full copy of the correspondence between the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the authors of "Pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer" published in Fertility & Sterility (2003, Vol. 80, Supplement 3).
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL2644
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that neither its members nor its executive have been in correspondence with the authors of the abstract referred to.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 18/11/2014 15:49:50 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

106174

registered interest
date	04/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Public Health: Regulation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how their intention to regulate non-medical public health specialists is consistent with their response to the House of Commons Health Select Committee report on the Health and Care Professions Council annual accountability review that extension of the current statutory regulation framework would only be considered where there is a compelling case on the basis of a public safety risk and where assured voluntary registers are not considered sufficient to manage this risk.
tabling member printed	Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
uin	HL2645
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government made a careful assessment of the level of risk posed by non-medical public health specialists before deciding to extend statutory regulation. Although there is no evidence that a non-medical public health specialist has acted in a way that has put the public at harm, in view of the rising proportion of public health specialists that do not have a medical or dental background and given the critical leadership role that public health consultants play in protecting the public from harm, the Government believes that there is a need to introduce statutory regulation for this group of professionals.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe grouped question UIN HL2646 question first answered 17/11/2014 14:14:43 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
tabling member	2024 label Biography information for Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

106175

registered interest
date	04/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Public Health: Regulation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evidence exists to suggest that the statutory regulation of non-medical public health specialists is necessary because of a risk to public safety.
tabling member printed	Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
uin	HL2646
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government made a careful assessment of the level of risk posed by non-medical public health specialists before deciding to extend statutory regulation. Although there is no evidence that a non-medical public health specialist has acted in a way that has put the public at harm, in view of the rising proportion of public health specialists that do not have a medical or dental background and given the critical leadership role that public health consultants play in protecting the public from harm, the Government believes that there is a need to introduce statutory regulation for this group of professionals.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe grouped question UIN HL2645 question first answered 17/11/2014 14:14:43 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
tabling member	2024 label Biography information for Lord Hunt of Kings Heath