Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what links there are (1) legally, (2) administratively, and (3) financially, between the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and pharmaceutical companies.
Answered by Lord Kamall
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is an independent regulator working on a nominal fee for licence applications and regulating the industry. The MHRA is funded predominantly by income from fees for both statutory and non-statutory sales of products and services, which includes working with pharmaceutical companies.
As civil servants, all staff are committed to the core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. Additionally, staff are not permitted to have any personal financial connections to pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, given the speed with which vaccines against COVID-19 were approved, what are the causes of the delay to the approval of the use of Ivermectin; and what assessment they have made of (1) the approval of Ivermectin by other countries, and (2) the health benefits that would result from approving Ivermectin for use in the UK.
Answered by Lord Kamall
Ivermectin was entered into the PRINCIPLE clinical trial in the United Kingdom in June 2021. The trial aims to generate robust evidence to determine its effectiveness as a treatment against COVID-19.
To date, there is no conclusive evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin in treating and preventing COVID-19, as there have been no supportive randomised control trials in the United Kingdom. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency and the World Health Organization have concluded that the evidence in support of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment is insufficient to warrant a marketing authorisation. The FDA has issued warnings against the use of ivermectin whilst it remains in trials, as it can have dangerous interactions with other medicines. Currently, there is no firm deadline set for the publication of trial results. However, the Therapeutics Taskforce continues to monitor any emerging evidence for ivermectin’s use as a treatment for COVID-19.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which manufacturers are supplying COVID-19 vaccines for the current booster campaign in the UK; and what proportion of the campaign total has been supplied by each provider.
Answered by Lord Callanan
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advises that the Pfizer vaccine and a half dose of the Moderna vaccine can be offered as the third booster dose, irrespective of which vaccine someone has received as their primary course. Where mRNA vaccines cannot be offered e.g. due to contraindication, vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine may be considered for those who received AstraZeneca vaccine in their primary course.
Individual developers are responsible for organising supply from different supply chains to customers. In line with existing MHRA approved production procedures we expect these doses to come from various manufacturers based in different European countries. The overall number of vaccinations is publicly available and updated weekly, however the proportion supplied by each provider is commercially sensitive.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the ability to transmit COVID-19 differs between someone who has been vaccinated and someone who has been infected with COVID-19.
Answered by Lord Kamall
An assessment on the ability to transmit COVID-19 between those who have been vaccinated and those who have been infected with COVID-19 has not been made. Several studies such as SIREN, Vivaldi and the Office for National Statistics Community Infection Survey have provided evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing infection and therefore transmission.
Results from the SIREN study indicate that vaccination was 85% effective in healthcare workers after two doses, compared to an 84% lower risk of subsequent infection in healthcare workers with natural immunity. The COVID-19 Infection Survey concluded that vaccine-acquired protection remains at least as good as natural immunity. In both people with and without prior natural infection, vaccination provides the highest level of protection.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the difference in protection against COVID-19 provided by (1) vaccination, and (2) antibodies, following a COVID-19 infection.
Answered by Lord Kamall
Multiple studies on the immune protection provided by both COVID-19 vaccination and natural immunity following infection are underway. This includes the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection EvaluatioN (SIREN), the Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey, Vivaldi, and the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission studies. Findings from these studies show that both infection-acquired and vaccine-acquired immunity give high levels of protection from new symptomatic and asymptomatic infections for several months.
Results from the SIREN study indicate that vaccination was 85% effective in healthcare workers after two doses, compared to an 84% lower risk of subsequent infection in healthcare workers with natural immunity. The COVID-19 Infection Survey concluded that although vaccines are less effective against the Delta variant compared to Alpha, vaccine-acquired protection remains at least as good as natural immunity. In both people with and without prior natural infection, vaccination provides the highest level of protection.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total aggregate remuneration of vice-chancellors or their equivalents in (1) 1991, and (2) 2020.
Answered by Baroness Barran
The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects and publishes data on students and staff at higher education (HE) providers in the UK. Latest statistics refer to the academic year 2019/20.
Data on the number of student enrolments at HE providers in the academic year 2019/20 are available in Table 1 of HESA’s HE Student Data pages: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/table-1. This includes students registered at universities, university colleges and specialised HE providers but excludes those registered at further education (FE) colleges. 107 providers held full University status in England as of November 2021 and 1,836,205 students at undergraduate and postgraduate level were registered with them in the academic year 2019/20. Each had one head of provider (Vice-Chancellor or equivalent).
Equivalent statistics for the academic year 1991/92 were compiled by the Universities Central Council on Admissions. Volume 1 of the 1991/92 students and staff publication from the Universities’ Statistical Record [1] shows that there were 346,587 undergraduate and postgraduate students registered at 34 universities in the academic year 1991/92. This count excludes students registered at FE colleges and former polytechnics.
Data on the total renumeration of each head of provider in the academic year 2019/20 are available in Table 11 of HESA’s HE Finance Data pages: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/finances/table-11. In 2019/20, the total renumeration (before salary sacrifice) of the heads of 105[2] providers that held University Title in England as of November 2021 was £30,243,000. Data for the academic year 1991/92 is not available.
[1] The USR publication is not readily available online but is available to users registered with the UK Data Service: https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/.
[2] Excluding University of Buckingham and Regent’s University London, which are not available.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (1) universities, (2) university students, and (3) vice-chancellors or their equivalents, there were in (a) 1991, and (b) 2020.
Answered by Baroness Barran
The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects and publishes data on students and staff at higher education (HE) providers in the UK. Latest statistics refer to the academic year 2019/20.
Data on the number of student enrolments at HE providers in the academic year 2019/20 are available in Table 1 of HESA’s HE Student Data pages: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/table-1. This includes students registered at universities, university colleges and specialised HE providers but excludes those registered at further education (FE) colleges. 107 providers held full University status in England as of November 2021 and 1,836,205 students at undergraduate and postgraduate level were registered with them in the academic year 2019/20. Each had one head of provider (Vice-Chancellor or equivalent).
Equivalent statistics for the academic year 1991/92 were compiled by the Universities Central Council on Admissions. Volume 1 of the 1991/92 students and staff publication from the Universities’ Statistical Record [1] shows that there were 346,587 undergraduate and postgraduate students registered at 34 universities in the academic year 1991/92. This count excludes students registered at FE colleges and former polytechnics.
Data on the total renumeration of each head of provider in the academic year 2019/20 are available in Table 11 of HESA’s HE Finance Data pages: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/finances/table-11. In 2019/20, the total renumeration (before salary sacrifice) of the heads of 105[2] providers that held University Title in England as of November 2021 was £30,243,000. Data for the academic year 1991/92 is not available.
[1] The USR publication is not readily available online but is available to users registered with the UK Data Service: https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/.
[2] Excluding University of Buckingham and Regent’s University London, which are not available.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to make free COVID-19 antibody tests available to all school children to establish whether or not they have been infected with COVID-19; and what assessment they have made as to whether children who have been infected with COVID-19 should also be vaccinated against it.
Answered by Lord Kamall
The second Office for National Statistics-led Schools Infection Survey has recently launched to determine the number of pupils who have developed antibodies against the virus and how the level of antibodies changes during an academic year. The information collected will inform policies to protect school children and staff. The Home Antibody Testing Service and Post Positive PCR Antibody Testing Initiative are available to those aged 18 years old or over. The Service is exploring whether home-based antibody testing may be used for testing in those aged under 18 years old and will only offer testing if it is safe and practical to do so.
Vaccination is important for children even in cases of previous COVID-19 infection as any immunity as a result wanes over time. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has advised that young people aged 16 to 17 years old who are not in an at-risk group and individuals aged 12 to 17 years old in clinical at-risk groups should be offered two doses. Vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds began on 20 September. In children at low risk, the JCVI currently recommends deferral of vaccination for 12 weeks after onset of confirmed COVID-19 infection or of a positive sample. Natural infection is likely to provide protection against severe disease in younger people without clinical risk factors that would last for at least three months.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the recommended waiting period between the first and second COVID-19 vaccination for children changed from 28 days to three months; and what steps they took to notify the parents of those children who received their second COVID-19 vaccination before the change took place of the reasons for this change.
Answered by Lord Kamall
The recommended interval between the first and second dose has not changed from 28 days to three months.
On 15 November the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advised that young people aged 16 to 17 years old who are not in an at-risk group should be offered a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) COVID-19 vaccine. The second dose should be given 12 weeks or more following the first. Individuals aged 12 to 17 years old in clinical at-risk groups should continue to receive their second dose eight weeks after the first. Their individual risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is higher and therefore outweighs any benefit of delaying to 12 weeks. From 22 November, healthy 16 to 17 year olds have been able to book a second vaccination.
Asked by: Lord Framlingham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to make evidence of a positive COVID-19 antibody test equal to a vaccination certificate for the purposes of admission to venues.
Answered by Lord Kamall
There are no current plans to do so. Individuals can currently obtain an NHS COVID Pass, which can be used to access domestic venues, if they have:
- Received a full course of vaccination;
- Received a positive result on a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, lasting for 180 days after the date of the positive test and following completion of the self-isolation period;
- Received a negative result for a PCR or lateral flow test, lasting for 48 hours after the time of the negative test;
- Participated in a United Kingdom clinical trial; or
- Received a clinically authorised medical exemption.