Asked by: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of the adult population are currently being prescribed antidepressants.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Based on the latest available primary care dispensing data (Q1, 2023/24) we estimate that 15% of the adult population in England is prescribed anti-depressants.
We do not capture the clinical indication of a prescription, so there may be instances where these drugs are used for other conditions.
Asked by: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to provide doses of monoclonal antibodies to people with blood cancer who have had the COVID-19 vaccine.
Answered by Lord Bethell
Immunocompromised patients are a priority cohort for research into therapeutic and prophylaxis treatments such as monoclonal antibody therapies, novel antivirals, and repurposed compounds. Monoclonal antibody treatments could potentially play a complementary role alongside the current vaccines programme in providing protection for those patients who may receive lower protection from vaccination compared to the general population.
The Therapeutics Taskforce and the cross-agency United Kingdom-wide group RAPID C-19 are monitoring clinical trials of monoclonal antibody treatments. The National Health Service is preparing to deploy antibody treatments as soon as they become available. It is not yet possible to determine the exact patients who may be able to benefit from new treatments, as this will depend on results from clinical trials, licensing approvals from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and clinical policies set by NHS England and expert clinicians.
Asked by: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how individuals can obtain confirmation of their COVID-19 vaccination status; whether that information is in a form that individuals can share with commercial organisations for the purpose of vaccine passports; and if so, how.
Answered by Lord Bethell
To record vaccinations, the National Health Service National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) is being used as the national register for COVID-19 vaccinations. At the point that someone receives their COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccinating team record this information onto NIMS and onto a patient’s general practitioner record.
The Government will review whether COVID-status certification could play a role in reopening the economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety. This will include assessing to what extent certification would be effective in reducing risk, and the potential uses to enable access to settings or a relaxation of COVID-19 secure mitigations.
The Government will also consider the ethical, equalities, privacy, legal and operational aspects of this approach and what limits, if any, should be placed on organisations using certification. It will draw on external advice to develop recommendations that take into account any social and economic impacts, and implications for disproportionately impacted groups and individuals’ privacy and security. The Government will set out its conclusions in advance of step four of the roadmap in order to inform the safe reopening of society and the economy.
Vaccination is not suitable for all citizens and there are other means of demonstrating a reduced risk of transmission. The NHS is working on providing individuals with the means to demonstrate their COVID-19 status through a digital and non-digital route and is working with experts to put security and privacy at the core of this approach. As we continue to explore and trial COVID-19 status certification, we will ensure appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny.
Asked by: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they plan to respond to the Questions for Written Answer tabled by Lord Forsyth of Drumlean on (1) 14 September (HL8056), and (2) 30 September (HL8627 and HL8626).
Answered by Lord Bethell
I answered the noble Lord’s questions on 18 and 24 November respectively.
Asked by: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (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 response to Question 2 in the Memorandum by the Department of Health submitted to the House of Lords Constitution Committee's inquiry Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards in March 2009; and whether they are satisfied that there has been suitable evidence to fulfil the four criteria as set out under section 45G of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 for regulations introduced in response to COVID-19 under that Act.
Answered by Lord Bethell
Section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 enables Ministers to use the made affirmative procedure, by which an Instrument can be made before it is approved by Parliament. This is possible, provided the Minister makes a declaration that circumstances warrant this approach, in order to tackle a serious and imminent threat to public health. The inherent safeguard is that the Instrument will lapse within 28 days, unless approved by Parliament.
In the Department’s Memorandum of March 2009, which dealt with Regulations made under the 1984 Act, including the ones that form a key part of our response to COVID-19, we explained that even if Regulations had to be made in an emergency, taking effect before approval, a debate on an approval motion could take place before the Regulations lapsed. This has been achieved throughout the course of the outbreak. Furthermore, debates on approval motions, in both Houses, took place on the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 the day after they were made, and before they came into force.
The nature of the COVID-19 pandemic is such that the Government’s response has to be agile, in order to respond swiftly and effectively to evolving threats. The pandemic is therefore a serious and imminent threat to public health. In introducing necessary and proportionate measures to tackle its spread, delay can be harmful, and frustrate both the overall response and the specific objectives of particular Instruments. The powers in the 1984 Act are therefore expressly provided in order to support the approach that the Government has been taking.
The criteria referred to in section 2 of the Memorandum and section 45G of the 1984 Act are:
- the individual is or may be infected or contaminated,
- the infection or contamination is one which presents or could present significant harm to human health,
- there is a risk that the individual might infect or contaminate others, and
- it is necessary to make the order to remove or reduce that risk.
These relate to specific orders made by a magistrate and are not required to be considered for the making of Regulations. These underlying principles are certainly applicable to the national response; and the Government’s view is that the Regulations satisfy all of the criteria set out in the Act. In the course of making Regulations under the 1984 Act, Ministers do undertake assessments as to whether the proposed course of action is a necessary and proportionate response; and it is clear that COVID-19 does represent a significant threat.
Asked by: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (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 Memorandum by the Department of Health submitted to the House of Lords Constitution Committee's inquiry Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards in March 2009 which states, in response to Question 3, “The Government believes that 28 days will allow enough time to arrange a debate in each House even when the requirement specified by emergency regulations is urgent, yet minor in scope and effect”; and whether this undertaking applies to regulations made under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 in response to COVID-19.
Answered by Lord Bethell
Section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 enables Ministers to use the made affirmative procedure, by which an Instrument can be made before it is approved by Parliament. This is possible, provided the Minister makes a declaration that circumstances warrant this approach, in order to tackle a serious and imminent threat to public health. The inherent safeguard is that the Instrument will lapse within 28 days, unless approved by Parliament.
In the Department’s Memorandum of March 2009, which dealt with Regulations made under the 1984 Act, including the ones that form a key part of our response to COVID-19, we explained that even if Regulations had to be made in an emergency, taking effect before approval, a debate on an approval motion could take place before the Regulations lapsed. This has been achieved throughout the course of the outbreak. Furthermore, debates on approval motions, in both Houses, took place on the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 the day after they were made, and before they came into force.
The nature of the COVID-19 pandemic is such that the Government’s response has to be agile, in order to respond swiftly and effectively to evolving threats. The pandemic is therefore a serious and imminent threat to public health. In introducing necessary and proportionate measures to tackle its spread, delay can be harmful, and frustrate both the overall response and the specific objectives of particular Instruments. The powers in the 1984 Act are therefore expressly provided in order to support the approach that the Government has been taking.
The criteria referred to in section 2 of the Memorandum and section 45G of the 1984 Act are:
- the individual is or may be infected or contaminated,
- the infection or contamination is one which presents or could present significant harm to human health,
- there is a risk that the individual might infect or contaminate others, and
- it is necessary to make the order to remove or reduce that risk.
These relate to specific orders made by a magistrate and are not required to be considered for the making of Regulations. These underlying principles are certainly applicable to the national response; and the Government’s view is that the Regulations satisfy all of the criteria set out in the Act. In the course of making Regulations under the 1984 Act, Ministers do undertake assessments as to whether the proposed course of action is a necessary and proportionate response; and it is clear that COVID-19 does represent a significant threat.
Asked by: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many COVID-19 tests return a false-positive result in relation (1) to the total number of tests conducted, and (2) as a ratio of positive results in England; and how such figures compare with the figures for such results in (1) Northern Ireland, (2) Scotland, and (3) Wales.
Answered by Lord Bethell
The information is not held in the format requested.
All tests have been assessed as performing to manufacturers’ specifications before being used. The current tests are very specific and the risk of false positives, where the test is reacting to other viruses, is extremely low in the order of less than one in 500. Like any diagnostic test however, there is always the small possibility of a false negative or a false positive result.