Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1002627

	registered interest
	date	06/11/2018
	answering body	Department for International Development
	answering dept id	20
	answering dept short name	International Development
	answering dept sort name	International Development
	hansard heading	Palestinians: Politics and Government
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, with reference to her Department's Memorandum of Understanding with the Palestinian Authority (PA), what assessment she has made of President Abbas's remarks to the Palestinian Central Council on 28/10/18 that the salaries of our martyrs, prisoners, and wounded are a red line and the martyrs and their families are sacred. We will continue to pay to the wounded and the prisoners. Even if we have one plaster left, it will be for them, and not for the living.
	tabling member constituency	Enfield North
	tabling member printed	Joan Ryan
	uin	188701
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/11/2018 answer text <p>Whilst prisoners and their families have a right to support in line with their social needs as they would in the UK, we want the system to be more transparent, affordable and needs based to make sure the payments cover only prisoners’ and their families’ needs. We continue to use our strong partnership with the Palestinian Authority (PA) to press for reform of the prisoner payment system.</p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt question first answered 12/11/2018 15:39:36 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	166 label Biography information for Joan Ryan

390341

	registered interest
	date	15/07/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Pharmacy: Negligence
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether the inadvertent mislabelling of medicines will remain an offence following the Government's legislation to decriminalise dispensing errors.
	tabling member constituency	Rother Valley
	tabling member printed	Kevin Barron
	uin	7377
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2015 answer text <p>The programme board for “rebalancing” medicines legislation and pharmacy regulation is tasked with examining the respective scope of legislation and regulation, and the interface between them, with a view to ensuring these are optimally designed to provide safety for users of pharmacy services, while facilitating and reducing the barriers to responsible development of practice, innovation and a systematic approach to quality in pharmacy. Members of the board, from across the United Kingdom, include representatives from the pharmacy regulators, the professional bodies for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the various sectors of practice and patients and the public.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A UK wide consultation, issued on behalf of the four UK Health Departments, ran from 12 February to 14 May 2015. It sought comments and views on two pharmacy related draft Orders being made under the powers in section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The two pharmacy-related draft Orders are:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposals and included many from individual pharmacy professionals (registered pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians), as well as pharmacy representative bodies, health organisations, patients and the public and others. A report will be published in due course and recommendations made to ministers on next steps.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>While retaining the criminal sanction the draft section 60 Order entitled ‘The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015’ provides:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 63 (adulteration of medicinal products) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are prepared by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist;</p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 64 (medicinal products not of the nature or quality ordered) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are dispensed by a registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; and</p><p> </p><p>- the conditions to be met if the new defences are to apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal sanctions will remain in place for dispensing errors falling outside the proposed defences, for example, where pharmacy professionals do not act in the course of their profession by using their professional skills for an improper purpose or deliberately failing to have due regard for patient safety. General criminal law may also apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A draft impact assessment was published alongside the consultation on dispensing errors. This will be updated, taking account of the consultation responses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There was an error made in the transposition of section 85 of the Medicines Act 1968 in part into regulation 269 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 during consolidation of medicines legislation. A legislative amendment has now been made, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to restore the effect of the original provisions which existed in section 85(5) of Medicines Act 1968, such that the labelling offence applies to businesses and not individuals, such as pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 7371 7372 7373 7374 7375 7376 question first answered 22/07/2015 15:40:22 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	392 label Biography information for Sir Kevin Barron

390347

	registered interest
	date	15/07/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Pharmacy: Negligence
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to consult further with pharmacy representative bodies before bringing forward legislative proposals to decriminalise dispensing errors made by pharmacists.
	tabling member constituency	Rother Valley
	tabling member printed	Kevin Barron
	uin	7371
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2015 answer text <p>The programme board for “rebalancing” medicines legislation and pharmacy regulation is tasked with examining the respective scope of legislation and regulation, and the interface between them, with a view to ensuring these are optimally designed to provide safety for users of pharmacy services, while facilitating and reducing the barriers to responsible development of practice, innovation and a systematic approach to quality in pharmacy. Members of the board, from across the United Kingdom, include representatives from the pharmacy regulators, the professional bodies for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the various sectors of practice and patients and the public.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A UK wide consultation, issued on behalf of the four UK Health Departments, ran from 12 February to 14 May 2015. It sought comments and views on two pharmacy related draft Orders being made under the powers in section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The two pharmacy-related draft Orders are:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposals and included many from individual pharmacy professionals (registered pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians), as well as pharmacy representative bodies, health organisations, patients and the public and others. A report will be published in due course and recommendations made to ministers on next steps.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>While retaining the criminal sanction the draft section 60 Order entitled ‘The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015’ provides:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 63 (adulteration of medicinal products) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are prepared by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist;</p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 64 (medicinal products not of the nature or quality ordered) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are dispensed by a registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; and</p><p> </p><p>- the conditions to be met if the new defences are to apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal sanctions will remain in place for dispensing errors falling outside the proposed defences, for example, where pharmacy professionals do not act in the course of their profession by using their professional skills for an improper purpose or deliberately failing to have due regard for patient safety. General criminal law may also apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A draft impact assessment was published alongside the consultation on dispensing errors. This will be updated, taking account of the consultation responses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There was an error made in the transposition of section 85 of the Medicines Act 1968 in part into regulation 269 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 during consolidation of medicines legislation. A legislative amendment has now been made, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to restore the effect of the original provisions which existed in section 85(5) of Medicines Act 1968, such that the labelling offence applies to businesses and not individuals, such as pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 7372 7373 7374 7375 7376 7377 question first answered 22/07/2015 15:40:22 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	392 label Biography information for Sir Kevin Barron

390350

	registered interest
	date	15/07/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Pharmacy: Negligence
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will take steps to exclude pharmacists from sanctions resulting from genuine dispensing errors and medicine labelling errors.
	tabling member constituency	Rother Valley
	tabling member printed	Kevin Barron
	uin	7372
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2015 answer text <p>The programme board for “rebalancing” medicines legislation and pharmacy regulation is tasked with examining the respective scope of legislation and regulation, and the interface between them, with a view to ensuring these are optimally designed to provide safety for users of pharmacy services, while facilitating and reducing the barriers to responsible development of practice, innovation and a systematic approach to quality in pharmacy. Members of the board, from across the United Kingdom, include representatives from the pharmacy regulators, the professional bodies for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the various sectors of practice and patients and the public.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A UK wide consultation, issued on behalf of the four UK Health Departments, ran from 12 February to 14 May 2015. It sought comments and views on two pharmacy related draft Orders being made under the powers in section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The two pharmacy-related draft Orders are:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposals and included many from individual pharmacy professionals (registered pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians), as well as pharmacy representative bodies, health organisations, patients and the public and others. A report will be published in due course and recommendations made to ministers on next steps.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>While retaining the criminal sanction the draft section 60 Order entitled ‘The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015’ provides:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 63 (adulteration of medicinal products) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are prepared by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist;</p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 64 (medicinal products not of the nature or quality ordered) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are dispensed by a registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; and</p><p> </p><p>- the conditions to be met if the new defences are to apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal sanctions will remain in place for dispensing errors falling outside the proposed defences, for example, where pharmacy professionals do not act in the course of their profession by using their professional skills for an improper purpose or deliberately failing to have due regard for patient safety. General criminal law may also apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A draft impact assessment was published alongside the consultation on dispensing errors. This will be updated, taking account of the consultation responses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There was an error made in the transposition of section 85 of the Medicines Act 1968 in part into regulation 269 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 during consolidation of medicines legislation. A legislative amendment has now been made, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to restore the effect of the original provisions which existed in section 85(5) of Medicines Act 1968, such that the labelling offence applies to businesses and not individuals, such as pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 7371 7373 7374 7375 7376 7377 question first answered 22/07/2015 15:40:22 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	392 label Biography information for Sir Kevin Barron

390352

	registered interest
	date	15/07/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Drugs: Labelling
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to amend the law on labelling of medicines in order to decriminalise dispensing errors.
	tabling member constituency	Rother Valley
	tabling member printed	Kevin Barron
	uin	7376
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2015 answer text <p>The programme board for “rebalancing” medicines legislation and pharmacy regulation is tasked with examining the respective scope of legislation and regulation, and the interface between them, with a view to ensuring these are optimally designed to provide safety for users of pharmacy services, while facilitating and reducing the barriers to responsible development of practice, innovation and a systematic approach to quality in pharmacy. Members of the board, from across the United Kingdom, include representatives from the pharmacy regulators, the professional bodies for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the various sectors of practice and patients and the public.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A UK wide consultation, issued on behalf of the four UK Health Departments, ran from 12 February to 14 May 2015. It sought comments and views on two pharmacy related draft Orders being made under the powers in section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The two pharmacy-related draft Orders are:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposals and included many from individual pharmacy professionals (registered pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians), as well as pharmacy representative bodies, health organisations, patients and the public and others. A report will be published in due course and recommendations made to ministers on next steps.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>While retaining the criminal sanction the draft section 60 Order entitled ‘The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015’ provides:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 63 (adulteration of medicinal products) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are prepared by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist;</p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 64 (medicinal products not of the nature or quality ordered) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are dispensed by a registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; and</p><p> </p><p>- the conditions to be met if the new defences are to apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal sanctions will remain in place for dispensing errors falling outside the proposed defences, for example, where pharmacy professionals do not act in the course of their profession by using their professional skills for an improper purpose or deliberately failing to have due regard for patient safety. General criminal law may also apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A draft impact assessment was published alongside the consultation on dispensing errors. This will be updated, taking account of the consultation responses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There was an error made in the transposition of section 85 of the Medicines Act 1968 in part into regulation 269 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 during consolidation of medicines legislation. A legislative amendment has now been made, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to restore the effect of the original provisions which existed in section 85(5) of Medicines Act 1968, such that the labelling offence applies to businesses and not individuals, such as pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 7371 7372 7373 7374 7375 7377 question first answered 22/07/2015 15:40:22 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	392 label Biography information for Sir Kevin Barron

390353

	registered interest
	date	15/07/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Drugs: Labelling
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect of section 85 of the Medicines Act on the willingness of pharmacists to report dispensing errors; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Rother Valley
	tabling member printed	Kevin Barron
	uin	7375
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2015 answer text <p>The programme board for “rebalancing” medicines legislation and pharmacy regulation is tasked with examining the respective scope of legislation and regulation, and the interface between them, with a view to ensuring these are optimally designed to provide safety for users of pharmacy services, while facilitating and reducing the barriers to responsible development of practice, innovation and a systematic approach to quality in pharmacy. Members of the board, from across the United Kingdom, include representatives from the pharmacy regulators, the professional bodies for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the various sectors of practice and patients and the public.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A UK wide consultation, issued on behalf of the four UK Health Departments, ran from 12 February to 14 May 2015. It sought comments and views on two pharmacy related draft Orders being made under the powers in section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The two pharmacy-related draft Orders are:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposals and included many from individual pharmacy professionals (registered pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians), as well as pharmacy representative bodies, health organisations, patients and the public and others. A report will be published in due course and recommendations made to ministers on next steps.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>While retaining the criminal sanction the draft section 60 Order entitled ‘The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015’ provides:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 63 (adulteration of medicinal products) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are prepared by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist;</p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 64 (medicinal products not of the nature or quality ordered) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are dispensed by a registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; and</p><p> </p><p>- the conditions to be met if the new defences are to apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal sanctions will remain in place for dispensing errors falling outside the proposed defences, for example, where pharmacy professionals do not act in the course of their profession by using their professional skills for an improper purpose or deliberately failing to have due regard for patient safety. General criminal law may also apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A draft impact assessment was published alongside the consultation on dispensing errors. This will be updated, taking account of the consultation responses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There was an error made in the transposition of section 85 of the Medicines Act 1968 in part into regulation 269 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 during consolidation of medicines legislation. A legislative amendment has now been made, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to restore the effect of the original provisions which existed in section 85(5) of Medicines Act 1968, such that the labelling offence applies to businesses and not individuals, such as pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 7371 7372 7373 7374 7376 7377 question first answered 22/07/2015 15:40:22 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	392 label Biography information for Sir Kevin Barron

390354

	registered interest
	date	15/07/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Pharmacy: Negligence
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the effect of his Department's plans for the decriminalisation of dispensing errors on the number of cases brought annually against pharmacists for such errors.
	tabling member constituency	Rother Valley
	tabling member printed	Kevin Barron
	uin	7373
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2015 answer text <p>The programme board for “rebalancing” medicines legislation and pharmacy regulation is tasked with examining the respective scope of legislation and regulation, and the interface between them, with a view to ensuring these are optimally designed to provide safety for users of pharmacy services, while facilitating and reducing the barriers to responsible development of practice, innovation and a systematic approach to quality in pharmacy. Members of the board, from across the United Kingdom, include representatives from the pharmacy regulators, the professional bodies for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the various sectors of practice and patients and the public.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A UK wide consultation, issued on behalf of the four UK Health Departments, ran from 12 February to 14 May 2015. It sought comments and views on two pharmacy related draft Orders being made under the powers in section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The two pharmacy-related draft Orders are:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposals and included many from individual pharmacy professionals (registered pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians), as well as pharmacy representative bodies, health organisations, patients and the public and others. A report will be published in due course and recommendations made to ministers on next steps.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>While retaining the criminal sanction the draft section 60 Order entitled ‘The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015’ provides:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 63 (adulteration of medicinal products) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are prepared by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist;</p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 64 (medicinal products not of the nature or quality ordered) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are dispensed by a registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; and</p><p> </p><p>- the conditions to be met if the new defences are to apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal sanctions will remain in place for dispensing errors falling outside the proposed defences, for example, where pharmacy professionals do not act in the course of their profession by using their professional skills for an improper purpose or deliberately failing to have due regard for patient safety. General criminal law may also apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A draft impact assessment was published alongside the consultation on dispensing errors. This will be updated, taking account of the consultation responses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There was an error made in the transposition of section 85 of the Medicines Act 1968 in part into regulation 269 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 during consolidation of medicines legislation. A legislative amendment has now been made, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to restore the effect of the original provisions which existed in section 85(5) of Medicines Act 1968, such that the labelling offence applies to businesses and not individuals, such as pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 7371 7372 7374 7375 7376 7377 question first answered 22/07/2015 15:40:22 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	392 label Biography information for Sir Kevin Barron

390355

	registered interest
	date	15/07/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Drugs: Labelling
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to amend section 85 of the Medicines Act 1968, as it relates to medicines labelling, in legislation to decriminalise errors made by pharmacists.
	tabling member constituency	Rother Valley
	tabling member printed	Kevin Barron
	uin	7374
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2015 answer text <p>The programme board for “rebalancing” medicines legislation and pharmacy regulation is tasked with examining the respective scope of legislation and regulation, and the interface between them, with a view to ensuring these are optimally designed to provide safety for users of pharmacy services, while facilitating and reducing the barriers to responsible development of practice, innovation and a systematic approach to quality in pharmacy. Members of the board, from across the United Kingdom, include representatives from the pharmacy regulators, the professional bodies for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the various sectors of practice and patients and the public.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A UK wide consultation, issued on behalf of the four UK Health Departments, ran from 12 February to 14 May 2015. It sought comments and views on two pharmacy related draft Orders being made under the powers in section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The two pharmacy-related draft Orders are:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p>- The Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2015</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposals and included many from individual pharmacy professionals (registered pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians), as well as pharmacy representative bodies, health organisations, patients and the public and others. A report will be published in due course and recommendations made to ministers on next steps.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>While retaining the criminal sanction the draft section 60 Order entitled ‘The Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors) Order 2015’ provides:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 63 (adulteration of medicinal products) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are prepared by a registered pharmacist or a registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist;</p><p> </p><p>- a defence to prosecution under section 64 (medicinal products not of the nature or quality ordered) of the Medicines Act 1968, in cases of errors where medicines are dispensed by a registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; and</p><p> </p><p>- the conditions to be met if the new defences are to apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal sanctions will remain in place for dispensing errors falling outside the proposed defences, for example, where pharmacy professionals do not act in the course of their profession by using their professional skills for an improper purpose or deliberately failing to have due regard for patient safety. General criminal law may also apply.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A draft impact assessment was published alongside the consultation on dispensing errors. This will be updated, taking account of the consultation responses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There was an error made in the transposition of section 85 of the Medicines Act 1968 in part into regulation 269 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 during consolidation of medicines legislation. A legislative amendment has now been made, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to restore the effect of the original provisions which existed in section 85(5) of Medicines Act 1968, such that the labelling offence applies to businesses and not individuals, such as pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 7371 7372 7373 7375 7376 7377 question first answered 22/07/2015 15:40:22 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	392 label Biography information for Sir Kevin Barron

416372

	registered interest
	date	04/09/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Doctors: Working Hours
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how he will classify residential and non-residential on call as part of his contract reform discussions with the medical profession.
	tabling member constituency	Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
	tabling member printed	Dr Poulter
	uin	8676
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/09/2015 answer text <p>NHS Employers are currently working on detailed proposals for reformed contracts for consultants and for doctors and dentists in training. These proposals will be based on the recommendations made by the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration in its report published in July 2015. The report can be found at:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contract-reform-for-consultants-and-doctors-and-dentists-in-training-supporting-healthcare-services-seven-days-a-week" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contract-reform-for-consultants-and-doctors-and-dentists-in-training-supporting-healthcare-services-seven-days-a-week</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 8677 question first answered 14/09/2015 16:05:38 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter

416373

	registered interest
	date	04/09/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Doctors: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his policy is towards the classification for pay purposes of (a) the same and (b) different specialities in his contract reform discussions with the medical profession.
	tabling member constituency	Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
	tabling member printed	Dr Poulter
	uin	8677
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/09/2015 answer text <p>NHS Employers are currently working on detailed proposals for reformed contracts for consultants and for doctors and dentists in training. These proposals will be based on the recommendations made by the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration in its report published in July 2015. The report can be found at:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contract-reform-for-consultants-and-doctors-and-dentists-in-training-supporting-healthcare-services-seven-days-a-week" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contract-reform-for-consultants-and-doctors-and-dentists-in-training-supporting-healthcare-services-seven-days-a-week</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Bedfordshire answering member printed Alistair Burt grouped question UIN 8676 question first answered 14/09/2015 16:05:38 answering member 1201 label Biography information for Alistair Burt
	tabling member	3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter