Author: admin

  • Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are considering banning the routine use on farms of antibiotics classified by the World Health Organisation as critically important for treating bacterial infections in people.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The legislation that controls veterinary medicines and medicated feed within the EU is currently under revision. To reflect the rising threat of antibiotic resistance the new proposed frameworks set out additional controls on antibiotics. This includes a ban on the routine preventative use of antibiotics, including those classified as critically important, something the UK supports.

    Negotiations on the frameworks are expected to continue until late 2017. There are no plans to significantly revise or amend the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 until the Commission’s work on the review of legislation has been completed.

  • Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle the increase in human campylobacter cases, caught from infected poultry, which are proving to be resistant to the key antibiotic ciprofloxacin.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major public health concern and a global challenge. The United Kingdom Government has established a 5 year AMR strategy (2013-2018) which sets out our actions to slow the development and spread of AMR. A copy of the UK Five Year Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy 2013 to 2018 is attached.

    The Government supports industry initiatives on the responsible use of antibiotics, such as those implemented by the British Poultry Council, who introduced a voluntary ban on the use of cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones in poultry in January 2012. This action will in the long-term help reduce the development of resistance in bacteria including campylobacter in poultry.

    Campylobacter is the leading cause of infectious intestinal disease in people in the UK and poultry meat is considered to be the main source of these infections. To address this, the Food Standards Agency has worked closely with industry in reducing campylobacter levels in chicken and is tackling this issue throughout the food chain; this has included improved biosecurity measures on farm, interventions such as blast surface chilling or additional heat steps during processing, the introduction of leak-proof packaging at retail and advice for consumers on safe handling of raw chickens within the home. These approaches are expected to reduce the number of campylobacter infections in humans.

  • – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Dunlop on 24 March (HL7079), concerning parity of esteem” as specified in the Belfast Agreement 1998

    Lord Dunlop

    In the Belfast Agreement, the concept of ‘parity of esteem’ is expressed and defined in relation to the people of different traditions in Northern Ireland.

  • Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Lister of Burtersett on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions the Social Justice Cabinet Committee is taking to monitor and support the implementation of the Family Test across government.

    Baroness Altmann

    The Social Justice Cabinet Committee is playing a crucial role by supporting cross government Family Policy priorities, and ensuring that the Family Test is applied consistently and appropriately on new policy.

  • Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Lister of Burtersett on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to the recommendations in Implementing the Family Test, a review of progress one year on by Relate, the Relationships Foundation and the Family and Childcare Trust.

    Baroness Altmann

    DWP welcome the Family Test, a review of progress one year on by Relate, the Relationships Foundation and the Family and Childcare Trust. We will consider the findings of the report in the next phase of our Government wide strategy to improve the embedding and implementation of the family test.

  • Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Lister of Burtersett on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether final clearance for any Government policy has been denied due to a failure to complete a Family Test assessment.

    Baroness Altmann

    DWP takes the process of monitoring the application of the Family Test very seriously and we have and will challenge the clearance of policies that haven’t considered the Family Test.

  • Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Lister of Burtersett on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultation has taken place, or is planned, with the governments of British Overseas Territories, specifically Montserrat, to make provision for those born before 1 July 2006 to fathers not married to their mothers to register as full British Citizens, as provided under section 65 of the Immigration Act 2014.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    A forthcoming review of British nationality law will look at what does and does not work in the current system, and how citizenship should be obtained in the future. As part of that review, we will consult with the overseas territories.

  • Lord Mawhinney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Mawhinney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how often the storage mechanisms and substance of patients’ confidential and private information held by pharmacies in the retail sector is examined by or on behalf of the General Pharmaceutical Council; and what percentage of examinations are unacceptable.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    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.

  • Lord Mawhinney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Mawhinney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how often the physical and governance arrangements which ensure that patients can have private conversations with pharmaceutical staff, in the retail sector, are examined by or on behalf of the General Pharmaceutical Council and what percentage of examinations are unacceptable.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    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.

  • Lord Mawhinney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Mawhinney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many pharmacies in the retail sector have been (1) reprimanded, and (2) sanctioned, by the General Pharmaceutical Council, in the last three years, for breaching patient confidentiality.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    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.