Author: admin

Anna Turley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anna Turley on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department takes to assess the risk of re-offending of offenders with learning disabilities before they are moved from in-patient care to care in the community.

Andrew Selous

When considering whether to discharge offenders detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 from hospital, the Secretary of State or the First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) must decide whether the detention criteria in the Act continue to be met. These are whether the person is suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree that warrants detention in hospital for treatment; or it is necessary for the health and safety of the patient or for the protection of others that he or she should receive such treatment; or the appropriate medical treatment is available. Decisions are based on advice provided by clinicians. The risk of re-offending by all patients, including those with learning disabilities, may inform their treatment programmes in hospital – for example, tackling drug addiction or reducing violence. The Secretary of State or the Tribunal will also take such risks into account for the purposes of determining the conditions for discharge into the community. Any learning disabilities may also be reflected in the level of care and support that offenders may be offered once they are in the community.

01/01/2023
Anna Turley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anna Turley on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to ensure the improved performance of the North East Ambulance NHS Trust in meeting its response time targets.

Jane Ellison

We expect all National Health Service ambulance trusts, including the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, to take action to ensure they meet the response time targets, and that commissioners oversee and support this process.

Ambulance services are facing unprecedented demand, delivering over 2,800 more emergency journeys every day compared to 2010 and still continue to respond to the majority of life-threatening cases in under eight minutes.

The Department continues to work closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement to monitor and support performance across all ambulance trusts in 2016-17. In the longer term, NHS England’s Urgent and Emergency Care Review will aim to tackle the root causes of the increasing demand on urgent and emergency care services.

01/01/2023
Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make it his policy to adopt a target encouraging the reclassification of medicines from (a) prescription only medicine to pharmacy medicine status, (b) pharmacy medicine to general sales list medicine status and (c) prescription only medicine to general sales list medicine status; and if he will make a statement.

George Freeman

The Government is committed to the continued reclassification of medicines from prescription only to pharmacy classification and from pharmacy to general sales list classification when it is safe to do so and there is a clear benefit to public health. This is an important part of empowering patients to manage their own care. The Government’s medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, is at the forefront of moves to reclassify medicines to non-prescription and is recognised as a leader in Europe in this regard.

Over the years reclassification has been facilitated by improving the regulatory environment for manufacturers to achieve successful reclassification of their products. Amendments to legislation were introduced in 2002 to reduce the legislative burden for reclassification; new guidance was published in 2012 to streamline the process; and in 2015 a United Kingdom platform was set up to maximise stakeholder engagement with the aim of encouraging further reclassification of medicines.

Patient safety remains the prime consideration in any decision to make a medicine available without prescription.

We are unable to calculate the total difference in cost to the public purse following these medicine reclassifications.

The attached tables contain the information for each of the last 25 years on medicines reclassified from prescription only medicine (POM) to Pharmacy (P) medicine and P medicine to general sales list (GSL) medicine. There are no examples of medicines which have been reclassified from POM to GSL. Where relevant, brand names have been included in brackets.

The lists represent the first reclassification either from POM to P or P to GSL of the product and further extensions such as wider indications, additional pack sizes or higher strengths have not been included.

Not all products listed are currently available, for various reasons, including both commercial and regulatory.

01/01/2023
Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for each medicine reclassified from (a) prescription only medicine to pharmacy medicine status, (b) pharmacy medicine to general sales list medicine status and (c) prescription only medicine to general sales list medicine status in the last 25 years, what the cost to the public purse was of prescribing that medicine in the three years (i) prior to and (ii) following its reclassification.

George Freeman

The Government is committed to the continued reclassification of medicines from prescription only to pharmacy classification and from pharmacy to general sales list classification when it is safe to do so and there is a clear benefit to public health. This is an important part of empowering patients to manage their own care. The Government’s medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, is at the forefront of moves to reclassify medicines to non-prescription and is recognised as a leader in Europe in this regard.

Over the years reclassification has been facilitated by improving the regulatory environment for manufacturers to achieve successful reclassification of their products. Amendments to legislation were introduced in 2002 to reduce the legislative burden for reclassification; new guidance was published in 2012 to streamline the process; and in 2015 a United Kingdom platform was set up to maximise stakeholder engagement with the aim of encouraging further reclassification of medicines.

Patient safety remains the prime consideration in any decision to make a medicine available without prescription.

We are unable to calculate the total difference in cost to the public purse following these medicine reclassifications.

The attached tables contain the information for each of the last 25 years on medicines reclassified from prescription only medicine (POM) to Pharmacy (P) medicine and P medicine to general sales list (GSL) medicine. There are no examples of medicines which have been reclassified from POM to GSL. Where relevant, brand names have been included in brackets.

The lists represent the first reclassification either from POM to P or P to GSL of the product and further extensions such as wider indications, additional pack sizes or higher strengths have not been included.

Not all products listed are currently available, for various reasons, including both commercial and regulatory.

01/01/2023
Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which medicines have been reclassified from (a) prescription only medicine to pharmacy medicine status, (b) pharmacy medicine to general sales list medicine status and (c) prescription only medicine to general sales list medicine status in each of the last 25 years; for each of those medicines so reclassified what condition that medicine was designed to treat; and if he will make a statement.

George Freeman

The Government is committed to the continued reclassification of medicines from prescription only to pharmacy classification and from pharmacy to general sales list classification when it is safe to do so and there is a clear benefit to public health. This is an important part of empowering patients to manage their own care. The Government’s medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, is at the forefront of moves to reclassify medicines to non-prescription and is recognised as a leader in Europe in this regard.

Over the years reclassification has been facilitated by improving the regulatory environment for manufacturers to achieve successful reclassification of their products. Amendments to legislation were introduced in 2002 to reduce the legislative burden for reclassification; new guidance was published in 2012 to streamline the process; and in 2015 a United Kingdom platform was set up to maximise stakeholder engagement with the aim of encouraging further reclassification of medicines.

Patient safety remains the prime consideration in any decision to make a medicine available without prescription.

We are unable to calculate the total difference in cost to the public purse following these medicine reclassifications.

The attached tables contain the information for each of the last 25 years on medicines reclassified from prescription only medicine (POM) to Pharmacy (P) medicine and P medicine to general sales list (GSL) medicine. There are no examples of medicines which have been reclassified from POM to GSL. Where relevant, brand names have been included in brackets.

The lists represent the first reclassification either from POM to P or P to GSL of the product and further extensions such as wider indications, additional pack sizes or higher strengths have not been included.

Not all products listed are currently available, for various reasons, including both commercial and regulatory.

01/01/2023
Robert Flello – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Flello on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the Care Quality Commission report, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, BPAS-Richmond, Quality Report, published in November 2015, whether his Department plans to issue guidance to abortion clinics on consultation on disposal arrangement following terminations.

Jane Ellison

The termination of pregnancies is a regulated activity. All providers of regulated activities must be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and must meet all of the relevant Regulations under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, including meeting the fundamental standards of quality and safety, which includes independent sector termination of pregnancy providers and managers. The CQC is responsible for monitoring and, where appropriate, inspecting providers in relation to their ongoing compliance with meeting those requirements. Independent sector providers are also required to comply with the Department’s Required Standard Operating Procedures which the CQC inspect against.

The CQC has made a public commitment to undertake inspection of all independent providers of termination of pregnancy services using their new inspection approach and will continue to respond to risk as appropriate and take regulatory action as required.

On the issue of whether the Department plans to issue guidance to abortion clinics on consultation on disposal arrangements following termination, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 April 2016 to Question 32357.

We have no plans to issue guidance to abortion clinics on the administration of drugs. The administration of drugs is managed through the CQC’s fundamental standards and through inspection visits.

“

01/01/2023
Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 13 April 2016 to Question 32366, what assessment he has made of trends in the proportion of the NHS budget spent on general practice over the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt

Overall National Health Service investment increased from £97.47 billion in 2010/11 to £110.56 billion in 2014/15, the last five years for which data is available. Over the same period, spending on general practice increased by £651 million in cash terms. The percentage of total NHS spend on general practice decreased from 8.6% to 8.1%.

NHS England has committed to increasing the funding it invests in primary medical care by an average of 4.5% each year until 2020/21.

01/01/2023
Robert Flello – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Flello on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the Care Quality Commission report, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, BPAS-Richmond, Quality Report, published in November 2015, whether his Department plans to issue guidance to abortion clinics on the administration of drugs.

Jane Ellison

The termination of pregnancies is a regulated activity. All providers of regulated activities must be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and must meet all of the relevant Regulations under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, including meeting the fundamental standards of quality and safety, which includes independent sector termination of pregnancy providers and managers. The CQC is responsible for monitoring and, where appropriate, inspecting providers in relation to their ongoing compliance with meeting those requirements. Independent sector providers are also required to comply with the Department’s Required Standard Operating Procedures which the CQC inspect against.

The CQC has made a public commitment to undertake inspection of all independent providers of termination of pregnancy services using their new inspection approach and will continue to respond to risk as appropriate and take regulatory action as required.

On the issue of whether the Department plans to issue guidance to abortion clinics on consultation on disposal arrangements following termination, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 April 2016 to Question 32357.

We have no plans to issue guidance to abortion clinics on the administration of drugs. The administration of drugs is managed through the CQC’s fundamental standards and through inspection visits.

“

01/01/2023
David Warburton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Warburton on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what her Department’s policy is on ensuring that Afghan interpreters who have assisted British troops are able to claim asylum in the UK; and whether her Department plans to review that policy.

James Brokenshire

The Government accepts that we have a responsibility to those who have worked for the British forces in conflict zones. Many have served with distinction and at great personal risk. Separate schemes have existed since 2013 to assist interpreters previously employed by our forces in Afghanistan. These apply only to those who have remained in Afghanistan and, in recognition of their unique and exceptional service or the danger interpreters may face because of their work, can lead to relocation to the UK if certain criteria are met.

There is no change to the way in which asylum claims by former interpreters with British forces in Afghanistan are considered. All claims made in the UK are individually considered on their merits in accordance with our international obligations under the Refugee Convention. Those who we accept have a well-founded fear of persecution are normally granted asylum. Those who are found not to be in need of international protection have a right of appeal to the independent courts. If all appeal rights are exhausted, they are then required to leave the UK.

Government policy is however very clear that we only consider asylum claims lodged in the UK. We have no obligation to extend the asylum process to those outside the UK and cannot undertake to consider claims by individuals or groups in other countries or facilitate their journey to the UK. People who need international protection should seek protection in the first available safe country – that is the fastest route to safety.

01/01/2023
Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what funding her Department has allocated to fund support for victims of domestic abuse in each of the next five years; and if she will make a statement.

Karen Bradley

The Government is providing £80 million of dedicated central government funding over the course of this Parliament to tackle violence against women and girls. In 2016/17 the Home Office will continue to fund a network of Independent Domestic Violence Advisers (IDVAs), Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) and Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) co-ordinators. We will continue to fund national helplines until 2020.

From April 2017 until 2020, local domestic abuse service provision will be supported through a new Home Office VAWG Service Transformation Fund, as part of the £80 million of dedicated funding. Full details of the how the fund will be administered and the criteria for applications will be published in due course.

01/01/2023