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.

Central government does not determine the level of resources spent by local authorities on adult social care. Each local authority will budget for what it expects to require in order to deliver the services required for their population, drawing on funding from local taxes, unhypothecated central government grant and income from fees and charges.

However recognising the pressures on local authorities, the Spending Review 2015 announced that for the rest of the current Parliament, local authorities responsible for adult social care (“ASC authorities”) would be allowed an additional 2 percent on their current council tax referendum threshold to be used entirely for adult social care. 144 of 152 eligible authorities made use of this precept in 2015-16, raising £382 million for social care.

My department publishes data (attached) from local authorities on their spending on all services. Provisional data for 2015-16 suggests that local authorities spent a net figure of £14.4 billion on adult social care in 2015-16.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/548114/RO_Provisional_Outturn_2015-16_Statistical_Release.pdf

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.

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.

There is no nationally agreed metric for operating efficiency. However, an annual efficiency requirement is built into the tariff uplift calculation that is used by commissioners in their contract negotiation with providers. In 2015-16 this efficiency requirement was 3.5% over 2014-15. Therefore, we can assume that organisations are delivering this efficiency if they improve their financial position based on these efficiency adjusted prices.

In February 2016, the Department published Lord Carter's Operational productivity and performance in English NHS acute hospitals: Unwarranted variations report, a review of efficiency in hospitals which provided details of how operational savings can be achieved. A copy of the report is attached. This programme, along with ‎additional funding provided by the government, will help reduce deficits in this year and bring the sector back into financial balance in future years.

The National Health Service will receive additional funding of £10 billion per year by the end of the current Spending Review period, with £3.8 billion provided in 2016-17 alone. From this £3.8 billion, we have created a £2.1 billion Sustainability and Transformation Fund that will help providers move to a sustainable financial footing.

NHS Improvement’s 2016-17 quarter 1 performance report confirmed that things are improving in this year, with lower levels of deficit, fewer trusts reporting a deficit and savings on agency staff.

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.

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.

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.

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.