Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many schools (a) submitted requests for and (b) have been granted funding because of significant asbestos problems under the second phase of the Priority Schools Building Programme.
Answered by David Laws
The aim of the second phase of the Priority School Building Programme (PSBP2) is to undertake rebuilding and refurbishment projects in schools with buildings in the very worst condition. PSBP2 is not an asbestos removal programme as, in most cases, the presence of asbestos can be safely managed with minimal investment. However, the Department for Education announced when the programme was launched that it would consider some situations where the presence of asbestos means the annual costs of safely managing it are excessive.
A total of 1299 schools submitted an expression of interest (EOI) for the second phase of the Priority School Building Programme. 307 schools indicated in their EOI that they had significant asbestos issues and provided relevant supporting documentation. These cases were assessed by independent technical advisers. This assessment considered whether the issues meant areas were already or likely to become inaccessible, whether the issues were classified as high risk or whether the presence of asbestos impacts on the operation or the maintenance of the school.
Eight schools met these criteria and in these cases the cost of removing or encapsulating asbestos was included in the calculation of the school’s condition need. Of these, six had sufficiently poor overall condition need to be included in the programme. Further information on the methodology used to prioritise schools for inclusion in PSBP2 is published online at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401689/PSBP2_Methodology.pdf
In all blocks where the condition need will be addressed, all asbestos will be dealt with appropriately, whether raised as a specific concern or not.
PSBP2 is intended to sit alongside - and not to replace or substitute - the responsibility that local authorities, governing bodies, trustees, dioceses and other bodies have for the maintenance of school buildings in their care. Given that PSBP2 is a six year programme (running between 2015 and 2021), it is essential that schools continue to address any concerns with regards to asbestos in an appropriate timescale and do not rely on PSBP2 to address immediate needs. All applicants have been made aware of this requirement.
Alongside announcing the schools to be included in PSBP2, the Government also announced school condition allocations for the next three years. We have reformed these allocations so that they reflect the condition of school buildings; this means that those schools in poor condition who missed out on PSBP2 can be confident that their needs will instead be reflected in the funding we make available to their local authority, trust or voluntary aided partnership for improving the condition of their schools.
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, on what date she plans to publish the report of her Department's review of asbestos policy for schools.
Answered by David Laws
No date has yet been set for the publication of the review report but we intend to publish it very shortly.
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 3 February 2015 to Question 222670, on what grounds the removal of cancer drugs from the national Cancer Drugs Fund list can be appealed; and by when such appeals must be made.
Answered by George Freeman
NHS England has advised that any request for a formal review of a decision made by the national Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) panel to remove a drug from the national CDF list can be made in line with NHS England’s Standard Operating Procedures for the Fund. Any request for a review of a panel decision must be made by the clinician or pharmaceutical industry representative that made the original application for inclusion on the list.
Requests must be lodged within 20 working days of the original decision being notified.
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 3 February 2015 to Question 222671, what recommended alternatives to (a) eribulin, (b) lapatinib and (c) everolimus are available to treat breast cancer; and what clinical benefits each alternative offers in terms of (i) progression free survival, (ii) overall survival, (iii) quality of life and (iv) toxicity.
Answered by George Freeman
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended a number of drugs for the treatment of advanced and metastatic breast cancer through its technology appraisals and a clinical guideline. These include:
- anthracyclines
- docetaxel
- vinorelbine
- capecitabine
- gemcitabine in combination with paclitaxel
- tamoxifen
- trastuzumab
Further information on each of these, together with the evidence base for NICE’s recommendations, can be found in NICE’s updated clinical guideline on advanced breast cancer (CG81) at:
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what representations he has received on park home owners being required to pay both the site licence fee and the site inspection fee; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Since the new site licensing regime came into force on 1 April 2014, my Department has received one enquiry with anecdotal evidence of park home owners being required to pay a site licence fee and a site inspection fee.
We have made sure the process for charging fees is transparent by requiring local authorities to publish their policy on how they will set the fees. We have also published guidance for local authorities on matters that can and cannot be taken into account in setting fees.
If a home owner and site owner are in dispute about whether or what amount of the annual charge can be recovered through the pitch fee, either party can apply to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination.
We recognise that more work needs to be done to change the culture of the sector. We have therefore set up a Minister-led working group to identify evidence of poor practice in the sector and investigate how best to raise standards further.
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps he is taking to raise awareness of carbon monoxide poisoning in homes.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
The Government takes carbon monoxide poisoning seriously.
The Cross Government Group on Gas Safety and Carbon Monoxide Awareness recent report lists the actions that have been taken by a number of Departments to raise awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. The report can be accessed at the following link: http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/domestic/cross-government-group-1314.pdf
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether further discussions are planned between NHS England and the pharmaceutical industry before drugs are removed from the Cancer Drugs Fund list on 12 March 2015.
Answered by George Freeman
NHS England has advised that A Cancer Drugs Fund Working Party has been established to review the future sustainability of the Fund and funding cancer drugs in general. The pharmaceutical industry is represented on this group.
The removal of cancer drugs from the national Cancer Drugs Fund list is subject to a written review/complaint procedure and NHS England anticipates that a number of applications will be made under those processes.
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the number of breast cancer patients who will be affected by the removal of (a) eribulin, (b) lapatinib, and (c) everolimus from the Cancer Drugs Fund list on 12 March 2015.
Answered by George Freeman
NHS England has advised that all patients currently being treated with eribulin, lapatinib or everolimus through the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) will continue with their treatment. Furthermore, clinicians will continue to be able to apply for individual patients to receive these drugs on an exceptional basis.
Based on current applications received for these drugs, NHS England estimates that, on an annual basis, 1,730 patients treated with these drugs will be affected.
NHS England has also advised that there are alternatives available for all these drugs within either baseline commissioning or the CDF. The purpose of NHS England’s recent review is to ensure that the very latest drugs are available to patients. The CDF has already helped over 60,000 patients.
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when his proposed committee on Park Homes will commence its meetings.
Answered by Stephen Williams
My Department is making arrangements for the working group on park homes to hold its first meeting in February. The working group will be tasked with identifying evidence of poor practice in the sector and investigating how best to raise standards further and tackle abuse.
Asked by: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent representations she has received on the commercial collection of ragworm in Sites of Special Scientific Interest; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
Defra has received no recent representations on the commercial collection of rag worm in Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
As part of a SSSI notification Natural England provides a list of operations requiring Natural England's consent, which may include, for example, bait digging. None of the listed operations is permitted to be carried out without Natural England's prior written consent or the consent of another public body. Consent would only be given if the activity did not impact negatively on the designated feature of the SSSI.
Natural England has not recently received any notices for consent for bait digging (including specifically for rag worm collection).