Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Photo-Dynamic Therapy and CPS.
Photo-Dynamic Therapy
In the light of questions asked today at PMQs, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the issue was not about whether Photo-Dynamic Therapy (PDT) was being implemented at the current time, but how long it would take to ensure a high and consistent standard of care across the country. NICE had agreed with the Department of Health that, because it would take time to train all staff up to the same standard, the target would be nine months instead of three. Thus, it was not a matter of some people not receiving treatment at the current time. Rather, where the facilities existed and were up to a high standard - which we believed was already the case in the majority of centres - people would receive the treatment now if they needed it. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that people would receive treatment where the facilities existed and where staff had been trained. However, because it would take time to train all staff in PDT, it would take nine months until a high and consistent standard of care was achieved across the country. Asked how we would square the fact that only people who lived in certain areas would be able to receive PDT, with the Government’s stated commitment to stamp out the postcode lottery, the PMOS said that it was a matter of training up all staff in PDT. NICE had agreed with the Department of Health that it would take nine months to do. Asked what was being done to help those people who needed PDT but lived in the wrong geographical area, the PMOS said that this was one of the issues which was being considered. He pointed out that, as we understood it, fifty centres were needed to cover the country. At the moment, only about thirty had staff who had been trained up in PDT. By the end of nine months, we hoped that all fifty centres would be fully operational.
CPS
Asked if the Prime Minister stood by the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday that it had been agreed the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would become the Public Prosecution Service, the PMOS said that he had dealt with the issue this morning at great length. He had nothing further to add.
Asked to explain the Home Secretary’s constitutional role in getting involved in the CPS, the PMOS said that the issue had first been raised a year ago by the Attorney General. It had then been mentioned by the Home Secretary last summer and by the Director of Public Prosecutions two weeks ago. This was not something that was new. The Government’s position remained as he had outlined this morning. A decision about the renaming of the CPS would be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. Both they and the Home Secretary saw the merit in renaming the CPS. However, a final decision had not yet been taken.
Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to the Home Secretary about this matter in the last twenty-four hours, the PMOS said that it wasn’t our policy to give a running commentary on every conversation the Prime Minister had. Suffice to say that he was in regular contact with the Home Secretary, as you would expect.
Asked if the rebranding of the CPS could cost around the same as MAFF’s change to DEFRA, the PMOS said it was always a mistake to assume that one change was the same as another. As anyone who was involved in change management would know, it was important to take local factors into account. He advised journalists to speak to the relevant Departments about this matter.
Asked the Prime Minister’s opinion about the proposal to rename the CPS, the PMOS said that the Government saw the merit in having a debate about it. That debate had been going on since last year.
Asked if he would agree with the Evening Standard’s interpretation of this morning’s briefing in suggesting that Downing Street had mounted a u-turn, the PMOS reminded journalists that a correspondent from another paper had asked him directly this morning whether Downing Street had performed a u-turn, to which he had replied ‘no’. A consultation process was taking place to discuss the idea. Obviously people were entitled to express their views. Equally, if Government Ministers believed the proposal had merit, they would make the case for it, as indeed they had been doing. Put to him again that the contrast between the Home Secretary’s words yesterday and the Official Spokesman’s words today showed a ’swerve’ at the very least, the PMOS said he would disagree. The Home Secretary, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions had all been consistent in saying that there was merit in the argument to rename the CPS. At the same time, however, it was important to remember that a final decision had not yet been taken.
Asked if the Palace had been informed or consulted about the proposal, the PMOS said that he wasn’t a spokesman for the Palace and referred journalists to the appropriate press office for a response.
delicious
digg
facebook
