Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when he plans to publish a substantive Answer to Named Day Question 49568 on Diabetes: Coronavirus and Named Day Question 49569 on Coronavirus: Screening that were tabled on 20 May 2020 and were due for Answer on 2 June 2020.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
We take parliamentary scrutiny incredibly seriously and it is fundamentally important that hon. Members are provided with accurate and timely information to enable them to hold the Government to account. We are working rapidly to provide all Members with accurate answers to their questions, as well as supporting the Government’s response to the unprecedented challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Rt hon. Member’s questions will be answered as soon as possible.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when he plans to publish a substantive Answer to (a) Named Day Question 49568 on Diabetes: Coronavirus, (b) Named Day Question 49569 on Coronavirus: Screening tabled on 20 May 2020 and due for Answer on 2 June 2020 and (c) Named Day Question 59658 that was tabled on 16 June and was due for Answer on 22 June 2020 on the delay in answering Questions 49568 and 49569.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
We take parliamentary scrutiny incredibly seriously and it is fundamentally important that hon. Members are provided with accurate and timely information to enable them to hold the Government to account. We are working rapidly to provide all Members with accurate answers to their questions, as well as supporting the Government’s response to the unprecedented challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Rt hon. Member’s questions will be answered as soon as possible.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department holds data on the number of victims of the vaginal mesh implants scandal that have undergone mesh removal surgery (a) within and (b) outside the NHS, and have subsequently found significant mesh residue that was overlooked during remedial surgery; what plans he has to certify NHS specialists as competent to undertake that surgery; and what steps he plans to take to reimburse the cost to victims of the mesh scandal who had to pay for private (i) therapy and (ii) surgery, as a result of a refusal by NHS specialists to accept that their symptoms were (A) physical rather that mental and (B) had been caused by their mesh implants.
Answered by Nadine Dorries
NHS Digital advises that it publishes finished consultant episodes for National Health Service hospitals where a procedure for treatment of urogynaecological prolapse or stress urinary incontinence (insertion or removal) is recorded. This provisional data is published monthly and the final data is included in the Annual Hospital Episode Statistics publication.
On mesh removal, NHS England is assessing bids from NHS providers to be specialist centres providing treatment for women with complications of mesh inserted for urinary incontinence and vaginal prolapse. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, every effort is now being made to finalise this quickly and stakeholders will be kept up to date with progress.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the vaginal mesh implants scandal, if he will take steps to ensure that the establishment of specialist treatment centres are multidisciplinary in order to permit an holistic approach to treatment and to avoid multiple referrals by GPs to (a) neurology, (b) orthopaedic, (c) rheumatology, (d) urology, and (e) other specialists lacking mesh-specific skills; and if he will ensure that NHS personnel previously involved in denying the harmful effects of vaginal mesh implants are excluded from staffing those remedial treatment centres.
Answered by Nadine Dorries
NHS England is assessing bids from National Health Service providers to be specialist centres providing treatment for women with complications of mesh inserted for urinary incontinence and vaginal prolapse. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, every effort is now being made to finalise this quickly and stakeholders will be kept up to date with progress.
The service specification requires that providers of complex mesh services must use the trust appraisal system to ensure surgeons are appropriately trained and current in their practice; adhere to clinical guidance; comply with national data requirements; and report complications. Clear documented evidence demonstrating competency to perform complex vaginal mesh removal surgery for all surgical members of the multidisciplinary team is also required.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the vaginal mesh implants scandal, if he will take steps to require (a) medical personnel who are consultants to firms making medical products that they propose to use for their patients (i) declare their interest and (ii) draw their patients' attention to such a declaration when recommending the use of those products and (b) victims of that scandal of whatever age do not have to pay prescription charges for medication required to treat their resultant injuries and symptoms.
Answered by Nadine Dorries
The General Medical Council already has guidance covering financial and commercial arrangements and conflicts of interest, which all medical practitioners must adhere to and which came into effect on 22 April 2013. We will consider whether these arrangements should be strengthened.
National Health service prescription charge exemptions are in place to help those with greatest need.
The Government will consider the recommendations in the First Do No Harm report published on 8 July very carefully.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the oral statement of 9 July 2020 by the Minister for Patient Safety on the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, Official Report, column 1147, what the timescale is for the Government's response to the Review's recommendations; what form that response will take; and whether he plans for that response to be subject to a debate on the floor of the House.
Answered by Nadine Dorries
The Government received the report on 8 July and now needs to consider it carefully. We will provide a further update in due course.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart on that country’s development of a passive vaccine treatment for covid-19 using convalescent plasma.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Experts at Public Health England have had several conversations with their Israeli counterparts, including on Israeli research into a potential vaccine for COVID-19.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent assessment he has made of the additional stress placed on carers, during the covid-19 lockdown as a result of the (a) continued closure of Day Care Centres and other organisations which normally provide respite time to carers; (b) withdrawal of other measures of support for carers, unless a care package is in place and (c) unavailability of people to substitute for carers, by day or night, when those carers would usually be at work; what the impact will be on carers and those for whom they care of the continued absence of sources of respite and support; what assessment he has made of the effect on NHS resources in the event that carers suffer mental breakdown as a result of an inability to cope; and if he will take steps to facilitate the (i) reopening of Day Care Centres, with suitable safeguards in place and (ii) provision of other measures of support to carers.
Answered by Helen Whately - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
We recognise the crucial role unpaid carers play, especially during the COVID-19 outbreak and the important role that day services play in providing care and providing an essential form of respite or short breaks for unpaid carers which can allow them to continue to work and support their health and mental wellbeing.
We want access to these important services to continue as soon as it is possible for them to safely reopen.
Decisions on the running and re-opening of day services are made on a local basis and will be subject to appropriate risk assessments based on the latest public health advice. We are working with the Social Care Institute of Excellence, local government and other sector partners, to publish guidance which will help get day services up and running again. In addition, Public Health England is developing guidance on the use of personal protective equipment in community settings, which will be applicable to day services.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of expert engineers in containing the covid-19 pandemic in Hong Kong; if he will extend an invitation to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers to join the expert team conducting the Government’s review of the two-metre social distancing rule; and what further steps he plans to take to ensure that evidence from highly skilled engineering sources is obtained and evaluated by the review team.
Answered by Helen Whately - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government commissioned a review into the two metre social distancing rule and took advice from a range of experts, including the Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Advisor, behavioural scientists and economists.
Given the significant fall in the prevalence of the virus, the Prime Minister announced that we can change the two-metre social distancing rule from 4 July to a “one-metre-plus” approach. This means members of the public can be one metre away from each other as long as other measures are put in place to limit the transmission of the virus. It remains better for managing the risk of transmission of the virus to stay two metres away from others outside your household wherever possible. Where it is possible to keep two metres apart people should continue to do so.
The Department is regularly in discussions with other countries on a wide range of issues of issues relating to COVID-19. The Department will continue to learn from and work with other countries throughout the crisis and beyond.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 13 May to Question 38861 on Coronavirus: Disease Control, for what reasons people living with post-polio syndrome have not been included in the clinically extremely vulnerable category; and if he will make it his policy to include those people in that category.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Those on the clinically extremely vulnerable list include those who have specific medical conditions that, based on what we know about the virus so far, place someone at greatest risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Disease severity, history or treatment levels will also affect who is in this group.
Some conditions are not suitable for blanket inclusion in the clinically extremely vulnerable and this is the case for post-polio syndrome where there is a spectrum of severity. Some patients with post-polio syndrome experience mild symptoms, and it would not be proportionate for them to be included in the clinically extremely vulnerable and advised to shield.
General practitioners and hospital clinicians can exercise their clinical judgement and continue to add people to, or remove them from, the list depending on the circumstances of each individual case. People will only be removed from the list following a discussion with their clinician.