---

8 Jul 2003 : Column 772W—continued

Cystic Fibrosis

Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people suffered from cystic fibrosis in (a) 1980, (b) 1990, (c) 2000 and (d) 2003; [124338]

(2) how many people suffered from cystic fibrosis in (a) England, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) South Tyneside and (d) the Jarrow constituency in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2003; [124339]

(3) what percentage of the population suffers from cystic fibrosis; [124340]

(4) what the average life expectancy is of a sufferer of cystic fibrosis; and what it was in (a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [124342]

Dr. Ladyman: Information on the incidence of individual conditions like cystic fibrosis is not collected centrally. Research evidence however, shows that around one child in 2,500 is affected by this condition. Separate information is not available for Tyne and Wear, South Tyneside and Jarrow.

Children born with cystic fibrosis do not have a normal life expectancy, though it is improving all the time. Currently, the average survival is more than 30 years, but with the best treatment, children have a greater than 80 per cent. chance of living into their late forties.

Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much does the NHS spend on cystic fibrosis in 2002–03; and how much this was expressed as a sum per head of population. [124341]

Dr. Ladyman: The information requested is not collected centrally. Primary care trusts (PCTs) receive unified allocations to cover the costs of hospital and community health services. The level of funding made available for cystic fibrosis is therefore a local decision. It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds.

Fluoridation

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of fluoridation as a public health measure to combat dental health problems; and which areas have been identified for possible fluoridation. [120629]

Miss Melanie Johnson: The Government wishes to empower health communities to make well-informed choices about improving oral health including the option of deciding whether to fluoridate their water. We are particularly attracted by the potential fluoridation offers for reducing inequalities in oral health. The Chief Medical Officer and Chief Dental Officer are considering the implications of the recent Medical Research Council report, "Water Fluoridation and Health", for the development of Government policy on fluoridation. It would be for primary care trusts and strategic health authorities (SHAs) to decide whether to consult on fluoridation. New schemes could be introduced only where a majority of the population were in favour.

8 Jul 2003 : Column 773W

The Government have received representations from the water industry, requesting that the legislation on fluoridation be amended to make SHAs solely responsible for deciding, where their populations are in favour, that a new fluoridation scheme should be introduced. We tabled a relevant amendment to the Water Bill on 2 July 2003, for debate on 9 July before third reading of the Bill in another place.

Food Supplements

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on food supplements with reference to safety and labelling; and what actions he intends to take to ensure that his policy objectives for the regulation of food supplements are met within the European Union regulatory framework. [120083]

Miss Melanie Johnson: The Government are firmly committed to the view that, in the interests of consumer choice, the law should allow food supplements that are safe and properly labelled to be freely marketed.

The Government, represented by the Food Standards Agency, is pressing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for an urgent, substantive meeting with relevant parties to discuss dossier requirements and expects a positive response soon. The European Commission supports this move. The objectives of such a meeting would be to explain problems faced by the UK food supplements industry resulting from the omission of nutrients and nutrient sources from the Annexes to the Food Supplements Directive; and to explore the potential for simplified dossiers to be presented for vitamin and mineral sources with a long history of safe use and the potential for read-across between dossiers for substances which are likely to have similar toxicological profiles.

The Government continue to press its view on maximum limits in the European Union at every opportunity. That is that maximum limits for nutrients in food supplements should be based on risk assessment and set at levels which protect public health, but which neither unnecessarily limit consumer choice nor unduly restrict trade.

Dr. Iddon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, dated 24 March, to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on the Food Supplements Directive. [121173]

Miss Melanie Johnson: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on Friday 4 July.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the effect of the Food Supplements Directive on British (a) manufacturers, (b) suppliers and (c) retailers of food supplements; and if he will postpone the implementation of the provision of the Statutory Instrument which transposes the directive. [122802]

Miss Melanie Johnson: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) consulted widely during negotiations on the Food Supplements Directive and, more recently, on the draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. The FSA has produced Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) on both the directive and the implementing

8 Jul 2003 : Column 774W

regulations. The RIAs summarise the FSA's assessment of the impact of the legislation on the food supplements industry in England.

The United Kingdom has to implement the directive by 31 July 2003. If we did not do so this would be a serious breach of our obligations under the European Commission treaty and would attract infraction proceedings by the EC under Article 226 against the UK and would risk heavy fines. Other member states may also initiate action under Article 227.

The implementing regulations make use of all the flexibility available to us in the directive, that is, they permit continued sale of food supplements in the UK until 1 January 2010 where relevant criteria are met; they do not require notification of new products placed on the market; and they prohibit trade in non-compliant products from 1 August 2005.

Glivec

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of Glivec for leukaemia sufferers following the National Institute for Clinical Excellence provisional recommendation. [123347]

Miss Melanie Johnson: The consultation period for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) provisional recommendations on Glivec for the first line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia has closed and NICE is now in the process of preparing its final guidance. It would be inappropriate to comment in advance of the publication of NICE'S final recommendations, which are expected to be published in the autumn.

Health and Social Care Bill

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with regard to clause 62 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, what he intends by a reasonable time. [121174]

Ms Rosie Winterton: We would expect the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) normally to enter and inspect premises at a time agreed with the owner.

However, where an unannounced visit takes place, it will be for CHAI to decide what is a reasonable time under the right of entry in Clause 60 (formerly Clause 62) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, and given any particular circumstances in the case in question.

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if personal records inspected under the right of entry will be covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 under clause 63 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; and if the person for whom the records are held will have the right to be informed that their records have been inspected and that copies have been taken which will be removed from the premises. [121177]

Ms Rosie Winterton: The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) will be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) as is currently the case for the Commission for Health

8 Jul 2003 : Column 775W

Improvement, National Care Standards Commission and Audit Commission, the bodies from which CHAI is composed.

CHAI will be required to provide "fair processing information" to persons whose records are inspected under clause 61, unless:

there is disproportionate effort in doing so;


they are satisfied that the subjects have already been adequately informed; or


in the case of an investigation of an individual, to do so would prejudice the investigation.

Under the DPA 1998, organisations that will be subject to CHAI or other inspections must also ensure that patients are made aware that their records may be accessed by CHAI and the reasons why this may be necessary.

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will put in place safeguards to ensure (a) that only records relevant to an inspection are inspected and (b) that an individual's right to privacy is protected under clause 63 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121180]

Ms Rosie Winterton: Subsection (1) of clause 61 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill establishes that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) may access records that it considers are necessary or expedient for the purpose of its functions under chapter 3 of the Bill. It will be for CHAI to decide what information is relevant to its inspections.

This will ensure that CHAI will not be able to inspect records unless it considers that they are relevant to the exercise of its functions. A body will have recourse to the courts if CHAI exercises its powers in an inappropriate way.

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for deciding what constitutes a prescribed person under Clause 65(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121184]

Ms Rosie Winterton: Regulations to be laid by the Secretary of State will provide a definition of a prescribed person and the prescription of such times and places as an explanation will be required.

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether, under Clause 60(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, there is to be a scale of fees for different cases or classes of case that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will charge in respect of its reviewing and investigating functions; [121189]

(2) if he will list the information the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will require a person or body to provide to enable it to determine its fee under Clause 60 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121195]

Ms Rosie Winterton: It will be for the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) to determine what information it may require for the purpose of determining the fee payable by a person or body under

8 Jul 2003 : Column 776W

subsection 57(1) (formally section 60(1)) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

Under section 57(4) (formally section 60(4)), fees that CHAI may wish to apply in respect of its reviewing and investigating functions may include provision for different fees to be paid in different cases or different classes of cases related to specified functions.

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, under Clause 60 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the National Assembly for Wales will be able to charge a fee for its reviewing and investigating functions in the case of a cross-border strategic health authority. [121191]

Ms Rosie Winterton: The National Assembly for Wales will not be able to charge a fee for its reviewing and investigating functions in the case of cross border strategic health authorities, since such authorities do not exist. Provision is made for the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI), not the Assembly, to levy fees on cross border special health authorities. This is specified under section 57(1) (formally section 60(1)) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

---