Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
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.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
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.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
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.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to providing controls on the use of the terms non-toxic and quasi-ceramic in cookware.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Food Standards Agency recognises the importance of clear and accurate labelling in relation to food contact materials. Under the Materials and Articles in Contact with Food Regulations 2012, all materials intended for contact with food must be safe and must not transfer substances to food in quantities that could endanger human health. This requirement applies regardless of the terminology used in marketing.
The terms “non-toxic” and “quasi-ceramic” are not defined or recognised as official terms under current food contact materials regulations. There are no plans to introduce specific definitions for them. Their use is instead subject to general consumer protection laws, which prohibit false or misleading claims.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 14 May (HL6764), whether (1) the Department of Health and Social Care, and (2) NHS England’s Workforce, Training and Education Directorate, either (a) hold data on the number of individual applicants for medical speciality training places, or (b) can extract such data from their existing systems.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS England holds data based on the application process for medical specialty training, which allows for the identification of unique applicants. The following data is part of management information systems summarising information supplied in historic medical specialty training cycles and has not been quality assured for routine publication purposes. Applicants may have chosen to only apply to one specialty programme or may have made multiple applications within any year. The following table shows the data held on the number of unique applicants in rounds one and two of medical specialty training for each of the years 2020 to 2024 across the United Kingdom:
Entry year | Round one unique applicants | Round two unique applicants | Total number of unique applicants in rounds one plus unique applicants in round two |
2020 | 13,901 | 6,457 | 20,358 |
2021 | 17,154 | 6,685 | 23,839 |
2022 | 18,260 | 6,134 | 24,394 |
2023 | 20,297 | 6,081 | 26,378 |
2024 | 26,203 | 7,179 | 33,382 |
Source: NHS England Medical Specialty Programme Applications Data.
Round one of the medical specialty application process includes applications to first year specialty training and core training programmes, often referred to as ST1 and CT1, and some ‘higher’ medical specialty training programmes, usually at year three, often referred to as ST3. Round two is for entry to most ‘higher’ medical specialty training programmes, often referred to as ST3 or ST4. There will be a limited number of doctors who apply in a year to both rounds one and two, and therefore they will appear twice in the aggregated final column of this data.
The Department also has access to information held in the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) which is managed jointly by the General Medical Council and the Medical Schools Council. NHS England submits specialty medical recruitment data to the UKMED. This includes more information on individual historical applications to medical specialty training, which underpins the data presented above.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the health risks presented by artificial hair braiding products, and how they plan to reduce or eliminate those risks.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Artificial hair braiding products are regulated by The General Product Safety Regulations (GPSR). The GPSR provides a baseline of safety, requiring that only safe products, in their normal or reasonably foreseeable use, can be sold.
To further safeguard consumer safety, Government is in the process of strengthening product safety regulation through the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. That will provide new powers to allow us to reflect modern supply chains and create a proportionate regulatory framework to ensure UK consumers are protected from risk, regardless of product origin or where the product where the product was purchased.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the environmental, economic and practical benefits of mechanochemistry, and what financial support they are providing for research and commercial development in that area.
Answered by Lord Vallance of Balham - Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)
UK Research and Innovation, via the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), funds a diverse portfolio of pioneering research projects that explore the frontiers of chemistry which underpin sustainable and innovative chemical processes. This includes exploring new methodologies such as mechanochemistry.
Current live projects, totalling £1.7 million, that include a substantive mechanochemistry method development include:
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the level of rare earth elements, other mining products and logging products from Myanmar in the UK supply chain; and what steps they are taking to reduce the environmental and human rights damage associated with such extraction, in particular through diplomacy, official development assistance and other routes.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
Our Overseas Business Risk Guidance makes clear that UK businesses procuring natural resources in Myanmar should conduct thorough supply chain due diligence to ensure that their intended activities do not contravene sanctions prohibitions and restrictions and that they are not supporting the military regime or its associated businesses. The guidance also advises businesses operating in Myanmar to comply with standards of responsible business conduct, including respecting human rights. The UK has sanctioned State Owned Entities involved in extractive industries in Myanmar, namely Myanmar Mining Enterprise 1 and 2 and the Myanmar Timber Enterprise.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government how they plan to support plant health professionals to guard against unknown and novel pests and diseases not currently listed on the UK Plant Health Risk Register.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Pests are added to the UK Plant Health risk register based on horizon scanning for new threats to plants in the UK, carried out by Defra’s plant health Risk and Horizon Scanning Team. A variety of scientific and other sources are used and the process is dynamic, with new pests regularly added in response to information gathered during such horizon scanning. Risks of existing pests are also regularly reviewed in response to new information. The ‘Risk Register News’ section on the Risk register website can be used to check which pests have recently been added or reviewed.
A risk-based approach to import inspections is undertaken at the UK border, to protect plant health professionals and others against known threats as well as new ones. Import requirements and inspection rates are kept under continuous review and adjusted as necessary, for example in response to an upsurge of interceptions of pests or a new threat emerging.
If a pest is identified at an import inspection, or through inland surveillance, which has not been identified during the horizon scanning process described, or has not yet been regulated, Article 29 of the plant health regulation (PHR), assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, applies. This requires action to be taken against any pest which on the basis of a preliminary assessment meets the criteria to be a GB quarantine pest. Where a pest which is not present in GB is considered to meet the criteria to be a GB quarantine pest, action would be taken against plants or plant products it has been found on, most likely resulting in their destruction.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the risk to (1) local job security and economic security, and (2) animal welfare, from the planned onshore salmon farm in Cleethorpes, considering the large-scale die-off of salmon at Mount Fuji in Japan in May and in Nova Scotia in November 2023.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Government supports sustainable, industry led, growth in aquaculture. To ensure sustainability, aquaculture operations must comply with extensive land use, environmental, animal health and welfare and veterinary medicines regulations. The proposal for an onshore salmon farm in Cleethorpes will be considered by the relevant regulators, as and when the relevant permissions are sought.