|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
In addition, the Department, in conjunction with other United Kingdom administrations, published updated UK Clinical Guidelines on drug misuse, "Drug misuse and dependence-UK guidelines on clinical management-2007".
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider the merits of undertaking pesticides analysis of high-risk non-animal origin foodstuffs in an approved laboratory prior to dispatch to a destination in another EU member state; and if he will make a statement. 
Anne Milton: We have been advised by the Food Standards Agency that consignments of certain high-risk products of non-animal origin are subjected to laboratory analysis in an approved laboratory to detect the presence of pesticides, at set frequencies dependant on the particular product and country of origin.
These controls are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009 (as amended). Where a consignment arrives at a designated point of entry (DPE) in England which is destined for another European Union member state, the competent authority at the DPE in England may authorise onward transmission of the consignment
pending the results of physical checks, including laboratory analysis. The competent authority at the DPE in England should liaise with the relevant competent authority of the member state of destination to ensure that the consignment remains under the control of the competent authorities involved until results are known.
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will assess the potential effect on the number of visits to GPs by patients of withdrawal of authorisation for certain herbal products following the implementation of the provisions of the EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive; 
Anne Milton: Directive 2004/24/EC on traditional herbal medicinal products was implemented in the United Kingdom in October 2005. The directive takes full effect when the transitional period for compliance expires on 30 April 2011.
The effect of the directive in the UK is to bring a sector that was previously largely unregulated into systematic medicines regulation. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in its impact assessment recognised that some businesses, including small and medium-sized manufacturers, were likely to be significantly affected, and that the impact would vary widely depending on the standards to which the businesses were currently operating. The assessment also suggested that some restructuring in the herbal sector was likely. This view has not changed.
The MHRA has so far received 143 applications to register products under the traditional herbal registration (THR) scheme. Of these applications 61 have been granted, and the remainder are under assessment. The agency is aware that many companies have made detailed preparations to comply with the requirements of the directive.
The Better Regulation Executive review of MHRA implementation of Hampton principles reported in 2009 that the agency had given extensive help to industry in preparing to meet the requirements of the directive. MHRA will continue to provide such support, which includes the opportunity for companies to have dialogue
with the agency as to how they can most effectively progress their intended applications under the THR scheme.
Companies are not required to notify the MHRA of unlicensed products marketed under section 12(2) of the Medicines Act 1968, therefore no estimates are available of how many products will need to be withdrawn from the UK market following the expiry of the transitional period. As now there will continue to be many herbal products that potentially can be placed on the market either as medicinal products or under other product regulatory regimes depending on their presentation.
Historically, unlicensed herbal medicines have been made to widely varying standards and have not necessarily been accompanied by reliable information about safe usage. Products registered under the THR scheme are manufactured to high standards and come with authorised information for the consumer. We do not believe it would be feasible to make reliable predictions as to the combined impact of actual changes in the regulatory regime and possible future changes in the herbal medicines market on the number of visits to general practitioners.
The process for determining whether or not a product is a medicine already includes the option of a review by the Independent Review Panel for Borderline Products. This panel was introduced in 2000 and details are included in the MHRA's guidance note No. 8, a guide to what is a medicinal product.
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many empty former psychiatric hospitals there are; and how many of them are in the process of (a) being sold and (b) being sold for the purpose of affordable housing. 
Mr Simon Burns: Information on the number of empty former psychiatric hospitals is not held by the Department. Parts of the site of two psychiatric hospitals are in the ownership of the Secretary of State for Health. One of these sites is in the process of being sold for redevelopment as a care village and thus will not include affordable housing.
Mr Simon Burns: National health service trusts, as owners, are responsible for the management of their estate and for decisions as to whether a property is considered to be surplus to requirements. The proceeds from the sale of property owned by NHS trusts are reinvested in improving local healthcare.
Anne Milton: The reintroduction of a licence for a single mumps vaccine would require a manufacturer to submit a marketing authorisation application to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The application would be considered in line with current legislative requirements regarding the licensing of medicines. The applicant would need to demonstrate acceptable quality, safety and efficacy of the vaccine before a licence could be granted.
Paul Maynard: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding was allocated for the care of Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients in each region through special commissioning groups in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Mr Burstow: This information is not collected routinely. Not all specialised commissioning groups commission services for people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Services tend to be located in larger hospitals based in big towns and cities.
Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has made an assessment of the effects on the revenue budget of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust of the decision not to proceed with its proposed new hospital; and what assessment his Department has made of the effects of that decision on the Trust's capacity to reduce health inequalities in its area. 
Mr Simon Burns:
Assessing the implications of the Treasury's decision not to fund the proposed new hospital in North Tees and Hartlepool is a matter for the local national health service. We understand that the primary
care trusts in the area, NHS Hartlepool and NHS Stockton-on-Tees, will continue to work closely with North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust on delivering the wider "Momentum: Pathways to Healthcare" programme, and will be discussing the options available with the Trust.
Brandon Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department holds on the health effects of dust particles on the people resident in areas near mineral or gravel pits. 
Anne Milton: The Department holds no information specifically on the health effects of dust particles on people resident in areas near mineral or gravel pits. Local authorities regulate dust emissions from mineral extraction sites.
David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department has taken to process the adjustment in direction of travel formula (DTF) in respect of Warrington Primary Care Trust in the last three years; what estimate he has made of the revenue accruing to Warrington Primary Care Trust in that period (a) with and (b) without the DTF adjustment; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what assessment he has made of the operation of his Department's funding formula for health services in Warrington; and if he will adjust the formula to take into account the recent change in population in Warrington. 
Mr Simon Burns: The following table shows the actual allocation to Warrington Primary Care Trust (PCT), annual cash increases and distance from target positions in cash and percentage terms for the three years 2008-09 to 2010-11.
|Actual allocation (£000)||Cash increase (percentage)||Cash increase (£000)||Distance from target (percentage)||Distance from target (£000)|
1. The funding formula was frozen in 2008-09 therefore no distance from target allocations were calculated.
2. A new funding formula was introduced for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 revenue allocations. The application of a new funding formula and data updates impact upon PCTs' target allocations. Average growth in each year was 5.5%.
The Department of Health: PCT Revenue Allocations Team
PCT allocations are based on the most up-to-date population figures available at the time of making the allocations. The 2009-10 and 2010-11 revenue allocations used sub-national population projections published in 2008. The formula also includes an adjustment to take account of the Communities and Local Government Growth Areas and New Growth Points and the allocation takes account of the Growth Point covered by Warrington PCT.
PCT allocations are highlighted in the coalition agreement as an area for consideration. An independent national health service board is to be established to allocate resources and provide commissioning guidelines.
We have guaranteed that health spending will increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament and health care spend will also be looked at as part of the next spending review. This will inform the speed at which all PCTs move towards their target revenue allocations.
Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what properties his Department (a) owns and (b) leases overseas; whether those properties are shared with other Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies; and whether he plans to (i) sell the property or (ii) cancel the lease in each case. 
Mr Andrew Mitchell: The Department for International Development (DFID) has not hitherto held central records of our overseas estates. We are currently in the process of developing a central information management system that will capture this information. I will write to the hon. Member with the requested information once this system is in place.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which section of his Department has responsibility for the (a) formulation and (b) implementation of policy on (i) abortion and (ii) sexual and reproductive health; how many officials in his Department at each pay band are employed in this section; what other posts in his Department each such official has held; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Andrew Mitchell: The Department for International Development's (DFID) AIDS and Reproductive Health Team, in the Policy and Research Directorate, is responsible for the formulation of policies on sexual, reproductive and maternal health, which encompasses safe abortion. Under DFID's devolved structure, implementation of policy is the responsibility of all programme divisions.
|Number of equivalent full-time staff||DFID grade||Traditional civil service grade||Pay range (London scale|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|