|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The National Treatment Agency (NTA) introduced a revised and more accurate methodology for counting the numbers in treatment in October 2004. Figures are not available on the new methodology for the years 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03. Figures will be available for these years later in autumn 2006.
We are unable to estimate how many people have stopped mis-using drugs including substitute prescribed drugs completely, however figures showing those who have successfully completed treatment, having been discharged from inpatient drug treatment services are given in table two. Numbers for years prior to 2003 are not available. Successful completion of inpatient drug treatment programmes may be the first step to achieving long term abstinence, but will not always mean they are off all drugs immediately.
|Table 2: Numbers successfully completed treatment of those discharged|
Caroline Flint: The Eileen and Macfarlane Trusts have requested an increase in their funding. This proposal is still being considered and the Minister of State for Public Health hopes to meet the Chairman shortly.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what beacon electronic health record sites were established under her Departments Information for Health: an information strategy for the modern NHS 1998 to 2005, published in September 1998; and if she will make a statement. 
Caroline Flint: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 16 May 2006, Official Report, columns 940-1W, to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). Beacon sites were those piloted under the electronic records demonstrator and implementation programme.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under what powers primary care trusts can make prescription of the morning after pill to children under 16 years without parental knowledge or authority a condition of obtaining a pharmacy licence; and if she will make a statement; 
(2) what advice her Department has issued to pharmacy companies whose policy it is not to prescribe emergency contraception over the counter without prescription to under 16-year-olds; and if she will make a statement; 
(3) which primary care trusts have made the prescription of the morning after pill to children under 16 years without parental authority a condition of granting a pharmacy licence; how many pharmacies have been refused a licence because of their refusal to comply with this condition; and how many (a) appealed against the decision and (b) were successful in such an appeal in the last year for which figures are available. 
Andy Burnham: A primary care trust (PCT) decides applications to provide national health service pharmaceutical services under the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/641 as amended). Under Regulation 12, a PCT only grants an application if it is satisfied it is necessary or desirable to do so in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in a local neighbourhood. This is known as the control of entry test.
premises in an approved retail area which is over 15,000 square metres gross floor space and sited away from town centres;
premises which the applicant will keep open for at least 100 hours a week; or
premises within a new one-stop primary care centre.
It is only in respect of Regulation 13 applications that a PCT can directly specify that a pharmacy provides additional pharmaceutical services, from a list of services set out in the Pharmaceutical Services (Advanced and Enhanced Services) (England) Directions 2005 (as amended). The PCT must have specified what additional services are required in advance of the application. One such service a PCT may specify is the provision of emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) to females of child-bearing age. This is an enhanced service by virtue of Direction 4(1) (k) and possibly (m) if a patient group direction.
It is for the applicant to decide whether or not to make an application under one of these exemptions. If an applicant does not wish to provide the additional services specified by a PCT for an exempt application, it may instead apply to provide services under the conventional route in Regulation 12. This does not allow a PCT to specify additional services that applicants are to provide.
The Department does not collect data on the number of PCTs which have specified the provision of EHC as a required additional service for an application made under Regulation 13, nor the number of refusals of applications by PCTs on these grounds or subsequent appeals. However, The Information Centre for health and social care publishes general data on applications to provide pharmaceutical services and appeals annually. The next bulletin for the year 2005-06 will be published later this year.
The family health services appeal unit of the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) deals with appeals relating to these regulations. The NHSLA produces an annual report every autumn. The website of the appeal unit at www.nhsla.nhs.uk reports details of appeal decisions, of which only one up until May 2006 related to EHC. This appeal was dismissed.
Family planning clinic services for Gloucestershire are provided by Cotswold and Vale primary care trust (PCT). The total number of occasions on which clinics run by this PCT prescribed post-coital contraceptives is published annually but the published figures include some instances where an intrauterine device was fitted. Cotswold and Vale PCT was created on 1 April 2002 and data for 2000-01 and 2001-02 relate to its predecessor organisations providing family planning clinic services, East Gloucestershire National Health Service Trust and Severn NHS Trust.
|Occasions on which hormonal post-coital contraceptives dispensed at family planning clinics provided by Cotswold and Vale PCT, 2000-01 to 2004-05( 1)|
|(1) Data is collected by financial year|
Information Centre for health and social care return KT31
|Total number of items (prescriptions)( 1) for hormonal post-coital contraception prescribed in Gloucestershire for the last four calendar years( 2)|
|(1) The data show the number of times a prescription written by a prescriber for whom the PCT was responsible was dispensed either by a community pharmacy or by a dispensing doctor.|
(2) A full years data for 2001 is not available
|Notified cases of food poisoning in England and Wales( 1)|
Data for 2005 is still provisional and may be subject to change.
Notified cases of food poisoning do not represent the total burden (or numbers of cases) of food poisoning, but they do provide an indication of changes in trends with time. Notifications of food poisoning are based on clinical findings and/or epidemiological links and there is no obligation to identify the causative organism or the vehicle of infection.
Based on laboratory reports and multiplication factors derived from a large study of infectious intestinal disease the HPA estimated that, in 2003, there may have been as many as 843,049 cases of food borne illness acquired in England and Wales, of which around 253,000 consulted a doctor(1,2). In that year, only 70,895 cases of food poisoning were notified. The HPA has not carried out a similar estimate for subsequent years.
(1) A Report on the Study of Infectious Intestinal Disease in England, 2000, The Stationery Office, ISBN 0-11-322308-0.
(2) This figure is based on (1) an evidence-based estimate provided by the HPA derived from a large study of infectious intestinal disease (IID) carried out in 2000 and (2) the number of laboratory reports of IID in 2003.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to ensure that the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health defines the distinction between the inclusion in principle of ingredients on the list of ingredients permitted for use under the provisions of the Food Supplements Directive and the subsequent setting of the levels at which such nutrients may be present under the provisions of article 5 of the directive. 
Caroline Flint: The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health defines the distinction between the inclusion in principle of ingredients on the list of ingredients permitted for use under the provisions of the food supplements directive and the subsequent setting of the levels at which such nutrients may be present under the provisions of article 5 of the directive. The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health defines the distinction between the inclusion in principle of ingredients on the list of ingredients permitted for use under the provisions of the food supplements directive and the subsequent setting of the levels at which such nutrients may be present under the provisions of article 5 of the directive.
The European Commission reminded the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on the 2 December 2005 of the distinction between the inclusion in principle of ingredients on the list of ingredients permitted for use under the provisions of the food supplements directive and the subsequent setting of the levels at which such nutrients may be present under the provisions of article 5 of the directive. This distinction is defined within the Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC.
Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has received the report of the Foster review of health professions; whether she plans to create a new umbrella regulator for the health professions covered by the Foster review; and what legislative changes would be required to create such a regulator. 
Andy Burnham: I received a draft of the report of the review of non-medical professional regulation on 30 December 2005 and a further draft on 6 March 2006. A statement will be made in due course when the Department's decision on the report is published.
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of the policy of free fruit in primary schools on children's dietary patterns and nutritional intake outside school. 
The big lottery fund, who funded the piloting and roll-out of the school fruit and vegetable
scheme (SFVS) into six of the nine English regions, commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), in partnership with Leeds University to carry out an evaluation of the SFVS. Results published in September 2005 demonstrated that children ate significantly more fruit while participating in the scheme. Analysis also showed that among those participating in the scheme fruit and vegetable consumption declined at home and increased in school, suggesting that the scheme did not encourage additional consumption outside of the direct influence of the SFVS.
A NOP World survey carried out in October 2003 found that over a quarter of children and their families reported that they were eating more fruit at home after joining the scheme, rising to nearly a third in social class C2DE.
The Department plans to carry out a further evaluation of the SFVS later this year. Monitoring the impact of the scheme on the eating habits of children outside school will be an important component of the evaluation.
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what correspondence her Department has had with (a) members of the public and (b) the General Medical Council (GMC) regarding the lack of a right of appeal by patients against decisions made by GMC case examiners following complaints against doctors. 
Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemophiliacs have been infected by (a) hepatitis C, (b) AIDS and (c) both hepatitis C and AIDS as a result of NHS treatment for their illness. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|