Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many prescriptions were given to women between the ages of 18–52 for sodium valproate in 2024, and what improvements have been made to the information provided to midwives to help them prepare expectant mothers with epilepsy.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The number of prescription items prescribed in England to women between the ages of 18 to 52 years old for sodium valproate in 2024 was 201,834.

Valproate must not be prescribed to women under the age of 55 years old who are able to have children, unless two specialists independently consider and document that there is no other effective or tolerated treatment, and the patient fulfils the conditions of a Pregnancy Prevention Programme (PPP). As part of the PPP, healthcare professionals should discuss the risks of valproate in pregnancy with the patient and the need to take effective contraception. The number of women who become pregnant while on valproate is very small and is monitored. Pregnant women with epilepsy should only be treated with valproate if there are no other treatment options.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has recently updated its guidance to assist healthcare professionals, including midwives, in supporting all women, especially those who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy. This updated guidance is readily available online.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to follow the recommendation in the report by the Animal Welfare Committee, Advice on emergency culling for the depopulation of poultry affected by high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) – consideration of ventilation shutdown (VSD), published in June 2023, that research should be undertaken to identify products that could be used as an in-feed or in-water sedative/anaesthetic/culling method as an alternative to ventilation shutdown as a culling method for poultry.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) leads government action on animal disease control in Great Britain. APHA and its contractors utilise a range of culling methods to humanely remove birds on infected premises where highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) or other notifiable disease has been confirmed.

One of the Animal Welfare Committee’s key recommendations was that ventilation shutdown should not be used for the culling of any poultry in disease control procedures due to the unacceptable impact on bird welfare.

Whole house gassing represents a better option, and this approach is deployed as a priority. Operational plans for the deployment of whole house gassing and other approved culling methods take account of the epidemiological risk for each case.

We are continuing to consider whether there are additional humane culling methods, such as high expansion nitrogen foam for poultry, that could be utilised but there are currently no plans for research into in-feed or in-water medications.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they expect to provide a response to The Hughes Report: Options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh, published on 4 February 2024 by the Patient Safety Commissioner before parliament rises for the summer; and if not, on what timeframe they expect to provide a response.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government is carefully considering the work by the Patient Safety Commissioner and her report, which set out options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This is a complex issue involving input from different Government departments. The Government will provide a further update to the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report in due course.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, pursuant to the non-technical summaries of project licences granted Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between January and March, what assessment they have made of the deliberate induction of pain on primates using methods such as heat, high intensity electrical stimulation or the injection of small amounts of high-strength salt solution; and what steps they plan to take to prohibit the use of such practices.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

The legal framework in the UK is set up to ensure that animals are only ever used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to that needed to achieve the scientific benefit.

Any application must take into account the replacement of animals with alternatives, the reduction of the number of animals used to the minimum possible and the refinement of any techniques to reduce the harm suffered by the animals to the minimum (known as the 3Rs). All project licence applications are reviewed by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit to ensure that any harm that may be caused to the animals is justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment. The Home Office only allows the use of animals if it can be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the harms and the 3Rs have been fully applied. All licence holders have a responsibility to fully implement the 3Rs and demonstrate this requirement at audit.

The Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) is engaging with stakeholders to finalise a strategy to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to animal testing which is scheduled for publication later this year.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, pursuant to the non-technical summaries of project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between January and March, what assessment they have made of the restriction of primates' access to food in order to induce them to perform behavioural tasks.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

The legal framework in the UK is set up to ensure that animals are only ever used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to that needed to achieve the scientific benefit.

Any application must take into account the replacement of animals with alternatives, the reduction of the number of animals used to the minimum possible and the refinement of any techniques to reduce the harm suffered by the animals to the minimum (known as the 3Rs). All project licence applications are reviewed by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit to ensure that any harm that may be caused to the animals is justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment. The Home Office only allows the use of animals if it can be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the harms and the 3Rs have been fully applied. All licence holders have a responsibility to fully implement the 3Rs and demonstrate this requirement at audit.

The Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) is engaging with stakeholders to finalise a strategy to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to animal testing which is scheduled for publication later this year.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether chlorothalonil is being manufactured in the UK; if so, in what quantities; what quantities are being exported; and whether they are considering further action in the light of new information about its impact on the health of insect pollinators.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

According to the Health and Safety Executive’s most recent published data, 14.16 tonnes of chlorothalonil were reported as having been exported from the UK in 2023, to the EU and Tunisia.

The export of pesticides from Great Britain (GB) is regulated under the GB Prior Informed Consent (PIC) regulatory regime for the export and import of certain hazardous chemicals. Companies intending to export any of these chemicals from GB must notify the importing country via the HSE. In addition, the explicit consent of the importing country is required before export of chorothalonil can take place. In this regard the UK goes beyond current international requirements.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they plan to take to identify and act on trusts holding excessive quantities of reserves that are depriving pupils of resources for which public funds have been provided, following the Academy trust reserves guidance, published by the Department for Education on 2 June.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities)

Academy trusts hold reserves, as part of good financial management, for a range of reasons. This will include:

• Ensuring sufficient cashflow and contingency funds.
• Maintenance and improvements to existing buildings, and construction of new buildings.
• Investment in IT and systems, and pupil and staff provision.
• The trust’s wider financial management strategy.

Academy trusts must be accountable and transparent on how they manage their reserves. The Academy Trust Handbook requires trusts to have a reserves policy in place, explain their policy in their published annual report and include a clear plan for managing the reserves they hold.

The department engages with academy trusts on their reserves to ensure they have plans in place to use their funds to deliver outcomes that benefit pupils, effectively mitigate against unforeseen issues, and invest in their current and future pupils’ education.

Found: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party) has tabled a non-fatal amendment to regret the motion

Found: BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE 127A★_ After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause— “Review of

Found: After Clause 16 BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE _ After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause

Found: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party) has tabled a non-fatal amendment to regret the motion

Found: BARONESS MCINTOSH OF PICKERING BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE BARONESS WILLIS OF SUMMERTOWN 108_

Found: BARONESS PINNOCK BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE _ After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause

Found: Planning and Infrastructure Bill 42 BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE ★_ After Clause 51, insert the

Found: Planning and Infrastructure Bill 28 BARONESS MCINTOSH OF PICKERING BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE

Found: BARONESS WHITAKER THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE _ Clause 52, page