Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps her Department is taking to account for the consequences of coercive control in divorce court (a) proceedings and (b) decisions.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

It is a top priority for this Government to tackle violence against women and girls, including economic abuse and coercive control. The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report on financial remedies on divorce considered the issue of domestic abuse, including economic abuse and coercive control, in relation to financial proceedings on divorce and the decisions made by the courts. The Government is carefully considering the report’s findings and will provide a response in due course.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department has considered locating anaphylaxis kits in (a) schools, (b) supermarkets and (c) other public places.

Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Since October 2017, the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2017 have allowed all schools to buy adrenaline auto-injectors (AAIs) without a prescription, for emergency use on children who are at risk of anaphylaxis but whose own device is not available or not working. The Department has published non-statutory guidance to accompany this legislative change, which is available at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/using-emergency-adrenaline-auto-injectors-in-schools

This guidance advises schools on the recognition and management of an allergic reaction and anaphylaxis, and outlines when and how an AAI should be administered for pupils. The guidance makes clear that any AAIs held by a school should be considered a spare device and not a replacement for a pupil’s own AAIs. It also states that children at risk of anaphylaxis should have their own prescribed AAIs at school for use in an emergency, and that they should always carry two devices.

There are many implications that would need to be given careful consideration if anaphylaxis kits were to be located in supermarkets and other public places. For example, we would need to consider the impacts on supplies of AAIs for patients to whom they are prescribed. There are currently only two suppliers of AAIs and, whilst there is close monitoring of continuity of supply at current levels, a significant increase in demand for AAIs would require close collaboration with suppliers.

There are other technical and practical challenges. It is not uncommon for AAIs to reach the market with around 15 months or less to expiry, and so establishments holding spare AAIs would need to conduct regular checks on their expiry dates and replace them quite frequently.

The susceptibility of adrenaline to deterioration at high temperature, and of the delivery mechanism to be impaired at very low temperature, make a temperature-controlled environment necessary. AAIs could, therefore, not be placed in direct sunlight or in an outside environment susceptible to freezing.

AAIs are marketed with different adrenaline doses and needle lengths. Individual prescriptions take into account age and body weight.

The administration of AAIs is not intuitive for an untrained individual. There are different brands of AAIs and they are not considered generic equivalents of each other. There are device-specific characteristics, including needle length, dose and propulsion, that affect the delivery of adrenaline into the circulation. Certain brands have different instructions for use, according to the device mechanism. Each has a different mode of operation and requires specific training in use.

There is also concern for the security of AAIs in public places against malicious tampering and theft with criminal intent.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions he has had on increasing access to Palforzia treatment.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) assesses the clinical and cost effectiveness of new medicines on behalf of the National Health Service in England. Palforzia is an oral immunotherapy treatment for peanut allergy. In February 2022, NICE recommended Palforzia for NHS use as a possible treatment for peanut allergy in children and young people aged between four and 17 years old.

Once a medicine has been recommended for use in the NHS by NICE, the relevant NHS commissioners have 90 days within which to implement the NICE recommendation, after which they have a legal responsibility to make the treatment available to NHS patients. Additionally, any qualified prescriber can prescribe any medicine recommended by NICE, such as Palforzia. It is each integrated care board’s responsibility to commission services that will allow this medicine to be offered to their patients safely and effectively.

<p>Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer.&nbsp;On behalf of the Petitions Committee, thank you for this opportunity to introduce the debate. The petition was submitted by Eleri Lewis, and closed on 24 November 2022, having collected a total of 267 signatures. The petition reads:</p>
<p>'The residents of the Mill, a new estate in Canton, Cardiff are having to pay an annual fee of £102 for the maintenance of a park bordering the estate. This payment must be made alongside other maintenance payments covering the unadopted highways, green spaces etc. Residents also must pay the full council tax required. Residents are not provided with a detailed breakdown of the costs of the park, just a notice to say they must pay the fee.'</p>
<p>'The Mill was regarded as a good example of Welsh Government policy due to its status as a mixed tenure estate including affordable housing alongside freehold purchasing – therefore with the current cost of living crisis we believe that the Welsh Government should support residents on estates like The Mill by encouraging and facilitating the adoption of maintenance by local authorities and to remove these punitive charges.'</p>
<p>Many Members are familiar with the problem of 'fleecehold', which has grown in recent years and does not just affect the residents of this particular housing estate.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Before going further, we must particularly recognise the contribution of Hefin David, who gave vital evidence to our inquiry, and asked me to ensure that today’s debate took place. Hefin was instrumental in highlighting this issue in the Senedd, having brought forward a Members’ legislative proposal in 2018 aimed at regulating estate management companies and strengthening the ability of freeholders to challenge estate managers.&nbsp;Hefin continued to push for Government action, and when our report was published in May, he asked that it be shared with his Westminster colleague Alistair Strathern MP, who has championed the issue in the UK Parliament, including through a private Members Bill, introduced there in July. Hefin also asked the First Minister on 17 June for an update on Welsh Government’s progress in addressing estate management charges, highlighting the concerns of his constituents in Ystrad Mynach and noting the committee’s work on this issue.&nbsp;It is fitting that work continues to pursue the regulatory changes that Hefin called for with such passion and energy on behalf of his Welsh constituents.</p>
<p>This was the second petition on estate charges considered in the sixth Senedd. An earlier petition calling for greater powers for freeholders to challenge estate management companies was closed in 2021 when the petitioner was satisfied with the Minister’s response.&nbsp;The then Minister for Climate Change said she was also concerned about the problem, which had prompted a call for evidence, and that she would use that evidence</p>
<p>'to help identify where change is needed and the options to bring about that change, legislative or otherwise.'</p>
<p>She recognised that the evidence raised a fundamental question about how public open spaces and facilities should be paid for, but that any potential changes proposed should not bring about unintended consequences or unforeseen adverse impacts.</p>
<p>It was clear from the committee’s later inquiry that problems with the current system persist. The committee’s visit to a housing development in Caerphilly—organised with Hefin David—highlighted home owners’ understandable frustrations.</p>
<p>Evidence gathering finished in 2023, but a number of developments then delayed reporting. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 affected the legislative landscape, and the incoming UK Labour Government then signalled an intention to make further changes, with a new draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill expected this year. In light of this, we made recommendations for Welsh Ministers engaging on that draft legislation and considering what needs to be done through Welsh law.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The committee identified good practice to apply to future regulation, and suggested Wales can learn from the Scottish model. It is reassuring that the response accepts this recommendation. There is also scope for all tiers of government and home builders to work together <span style="text-decoration: underline;">for greater consistency.&nbsp;We call for</span></p>