| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2478W—continued
Food Labelling
Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the efficacy of a food labelling system based on (a) guideline daily amounts and (b) a multiple traffic lights system. [57645]
Caroline Flint: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has undertaken a comprehensive research programme that looked at the efficacy of a number of different signposting formats. This evidence demonstrated that traffic light colours were a more effective means of providing at a glance information to consumers than purely numerical information.
The FSA board has taken the research and the feedback from an extensive stakeholder consultation before finalising its recommendation for front of pack signpost labelling which incorporates the following core elements:
Use of red, amber or green colour coding to provide at a glance information on the level, that is, whether high, medium or low, of individual nutrients in the product;
The FSA recognised that companies might want to include additional information, such as on guideline daily amounts.
Food Supplements
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her objectives are for the further negotiations in the EU on the proposed regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods. [57506]
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2479W
Caroline Flint: During the second reading of the proposal, the Government's objective will be to ensure a regulation which provides consumer protection but is also proportionate and does not place unnecessary burdens on businesses.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact assessment was carried out by the European Commission on the proposed EU regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods. [57507]
Caroline Flint: The text of the proposal, deposited for scrutiny in both houses under Explanatory Memorandum 11646/03 in August 2003, included an impact assessment by the European Commission. A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) prepared by the Food Standards Agency was also deposited at the same time.
The Government's RIA has been and will continue to be updated and revised to reflect progress in the negotiations on this proposal and information received from consultations with stakeholders. The most recent version was copied to the Chairmen of the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses in April 2005.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with other EU member states on their requirements for inclusion on the register for health claims under the proposed EU regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods. [57508]
Caroline Flint: EU member states are focused on the continuing negotiations more than on the detailed application of future requirements. Nevertheless, officials of the Food Standards Agency will continue to informally engage with other EU member states to seek a consistent and proportionate approach to compiling lists of specific health claims for submission to the European Commission.
Health Services (Capital Expenditure)
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding for capital expenditure on health services was allotted to each primary care trust in each of the past five years expressed (a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the total; [55473]
(2) what funding each primary care trust will receive for (a) capital expenditure and (b) revenue expenditure on health services in 2006–07; and how much each trust received in (i) capital expenditure and (ii) revenue expenditure in 2005–06. [55583]
Mr. Byrne: The information requested has been placed in the Library.
However, we have only been able to supply four years worth of data. 2003–04 was the first year that capital allocations were made to primary care trusts. Prior to 2003–04, capital was allocated to regional offices, and they allocated to organisations in their patches.
Herceptin
Mr. Stewart Jackson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to make Herceptin available
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2480W
for the treatment of early stage breast cancer patients in the West Anglia Cancer Network area; and if she will make a statement. [55699]
Ms Rosie Winterton: The responsibility for local health services now lies with the local national health service and it is for primary care trusts (PCTs) in conjunction with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders to plan and develop services to meet the needs of their local populations. As such, it is not appropriate for Ministers to intervene in local decision making.
Policy on Herceptin for early stage breast cancer was published in the Chief Executive's bulletin on 10 November 2005 which is available on the Department's website at:
www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Bulletins/ChiefExecutiveBulletin/BulletinCE/fs/en?CONTENT_ID= 4122883&chk=85YQSF#5491542.
The advice remains unchanged in that
it is down to individual clinicians to decide whether to prescribe Herceptin for a patient who has tested HER2 positive after discussions about potential risks and taking into account her medical history;
Kettering General Hospital
Mr. Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the purpose was of her predecessor's visit to Kettering General Hospital in February; and from which budget the cost of his transport was met. [29021]
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 16 November 2005]: The visit by the Secretary of State for Defence to Kettering General Hospital was to highlight plans to reduce waiting times to a maximum of 18 weeks end-to-end. The cost of providing an official car was met by the Government in accordance with paragraph 17 of Travel by Ministers'.
Medicines
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to announce the outcome of the consultation by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency on the Medicines (Fees) Regulations. [53855]
Jane Kennedy:
The consultation period on proposals to increase fees payable to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) ended on 3 February with a total of 66 replies being received. The great majority of responses coming from pharmaceutical companies or pharmaceutical industry associations. Of the 66 responses, 57 stated that they did not support the proposed fee increases. The majority of these responses stated that they supported the work of the MHRA and the need for the Agency to be properly funded in order to deliver its responsibilities effectively, but pointed out that fee increases of the level proposed were not warranted without a commensurate improvement in service levels received by companies. Many responses expressed concern about current levels of service, including slow turnaround of licence applications and variations. A more detailed account of
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2481W
the responses received can be found on the Agency's website (www.mhra.gov.uk) and copies of the replies (excluding those which have been made in confidence) can be obtained from the Agency directly.
The proposals to introduce a new national scheme for homoeopathic products has been delayed until later this year. The implementation date will be announced in due course. The consultation responses on those fees will therefore be considered separately.
We have considered carefully the replies received to the consultation exercise. There have been a number of enhancements to the ways in which the Agency undertakes its responsibilities to protect public health through assuring the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines in the UK. Some of these have come as a result of revised European legislation, others from improvements in monitoring the safety of medicines, including recommendations from the Health Select Committee Report on the Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry (published 5 April 2005). These changes, alongside infrastructure costs such as pension contributions, and the fact that fee levels were frozen in 2005–06, have led to the additional costs to be recouped from fee income. The Agency, as a Government trading fund, is under an obligation to recover costs fully from its income from fees.
I have concluded that the fees increases are justified and have today approved the regulations to be laid before the House, for implementation from 1 April 2006. I have, however, taken due note of the concerns expressed in the consultation about the Agency's service levels. It is reasonable that in return for increased fees, companies should expect to see improvements in the way that their business is handled. The MHRA will therefore be working with the main industry associations on how to monitor service levels, and how to ensure that changes in the Agency's information systems and organisational structure deliver the intended benefits in terms of efficiency and speed of decision-making. I will ask the Agency to report to me regularly on progress.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |