Search Results

1-20 of 32 results for subject:Testing

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government plan to replace arrangements for the safety testing of shellfish with alternatives which do not require testing on animals.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

2 February 2010

Reference

505 c201W; 312690

House

House of Commons

Random Drug Testing

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used in selecting departmental establishments for random drug testing.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

17 November 2005

Reference

27652; 439 c1416W;439 c1420W

House

House of Commons

HMS Nelson

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times HMS Nelson has been subject to random drug testing in each of the last three years; and what the results were.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

10 November 2005

Reference

26881; 439 c707W;439 c707W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps have been taken to ensure that the botox which is used for cosmetic purposes in the UK has been safety-tested; and if he will make a statement; if he will ban the (a) prescribing and (b) use of botulinum toxin...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

8 February 2005

For answer on

9 March 2005

Answered on

9 March 2005

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken to ensure that the botox which is used for cosmetic purposes in the UK has been safety-tested; and if he will make a statement; [216114] (2) if he will ban the (a) prescribing and (b) use of botulinum toxin for cosmetic purposes. [216464] Ms Rosie Winterton: The uses approved for licensed botulinum products are limited to the treatment of certain kinds of muscular spasms and disabling spasticities. For those uses we are satisfied that the products meet all of the safety requirements laid down in European legislation and guidance and these together with standards for quality and efficacy are a prerequisite for the licensing of medicinal products. If these products are being used for cosmetic purposes then they are being used outside the terms of the product licenses the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has granted. However, doctors may prescribe and use a licensed medicine for unlicensed purposes to meet the need of an individual patient, on their own responsibility, where they judge the benefit to the patient is justified. The Chief Medical Officer established the Expert Group on the Regulation of Cosmetic Surgery to provide advice on whether the current regulation of cosmetic surgery was sufficient to ensure patient safety. The expert group published its report on 28 January 2005. It recommended that the current law relating to the prescription of botulinum toxin--which allows for its prescription by a doctor and its administration by a doctor or nurses--should be more consistently adhered to, and that facilities where botulinum toxin is injected should be licensed by the Healthcare Commission and subject to its regulations. The Government accept these recommendations, and will work with the Healthcare Commission, professional bodies and other key stakeholders to formulate an implementation programme.

Date

9 March 2005

Reference

431 c1901W;431 c1894W; 216114;216464

House

House of Commons

ANIMAL TESTING OF DRUGS

That this House expresses its concerns regarding the safeguarding of public health through data obtained from laboratory animals, particularly in light of large numbers of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions that were not predicted by animal studies; is surprised that the Government has not commissioned or evaluated any formal...

Primary sponsor

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Type

Early day motions

Date

14 December 2004

Reference

385

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what recent assessment she has made of the accuracy of scientific testing to determine whether products contain (a) cat and (b) dog fur; and if she will make a statement. - Inc ref to 28 January 2004, 417 c11-2WS.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

7 December 2004

Reference

200977; 428 c469W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessments she has made of the effect on the number of experiments on animals of the new REACH regulations; and if she will make a statement. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

31 August 2004

For answer on

16 September 2004

Answered on

16 September 2004

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessments she has made of the effect on the number of experiments on animals of the new REACH regulations; and if she will make a statement. [187479] Alun Michael: The EU proposal on REACH requires information to be gathered on chemicals in order to provide the basis for protecting human health and the environment. This information may come from a number of sources, one of which is animal testing. The Commission has estimated that this draft Regulation will require data to be gathered on approximately 30,000 chemicals. Of these, 20,000 are thought to be produced or imported in quantities of less than 10 tonnes. At this tonnage the current Commission proposal requires 25 animals per chemical, although it should be remembered that in most cases the tests are expected to demonstrate that the chemical concerned is safe and therefore involves no threat to humans or animals. It is a key objective of the UK Government's work on REACH to keep animal testing to a minimum. Discussions are continuing on that basis. The Commission proposal would require further data as tonnage increases to reflect the greater potential human and environmental exposure. The tests performed need to comply with the relevant requirements for the protection of laboratory animals set out in Directive 86/609/EEC where, among other things, methods used must be refined in such a way as to minimise the amount of suffering caused to the animals concerned. Further, the chemical industry already has some of this data and there are other sources of information such as modelling of data and grouping of chemicals to read-across data from one chemical to another, all of which will reduce the amount of new testing that will be required. If recent experience from a major testing programme in the USA were to be duplicated in Europe, the number of new animal tests that will need to be undertaken will be significantly lower than the estimates talked about to date. It is an overall objective, for the UK Government, in negotiating this Regulation, to ensure that animal testing is kept to the minimum necessary to protect human health and the environment. One of the ways we aim to do this is by applying an intelligent approach to testing. The Government welcomes the Commission's efforts to minimise animal testing and recognises that several provisos have been included in the legislative proposal to encourage maximum use of existing data, avoid duplication of testing and use alternative methods wherever appropriate.

Date

16 September 2004

Reference

424 c1663-4W;424 c1661-2W; 187479

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many licences were issued for the animal testing of botulinium toxin in each year since 1997; how many animals were involved, broken down by (a) breed and (b) type; and how much toxin was involved in each case. -...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

28 June 2004

For answer on

22 July 2004

Answered on

22 July 2004

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences were issued for the animal testing of botulinium toxin in each year since 1997; how many animals were involved, broken down by (a) breed and (b) type; and how much toxin was involved in each case. [181809] Caroline Flint: A survey of currently held data indicates that 10 project licences have been granted since 1997 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, authorising the use of animals in research and testing involving botulinum toxin. The figures are: _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Number of project licences issued 1997 1 1998 1 1999 1 2000-01 0 2002 4 2003 2 2004 (To date) 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. The licensed work has covered safety testing of the toxin for clinical use, research and development as regards possible new clinical applications, research into alternative methods of testing, and forensic food safety checks. None has been connected with publicised use of the substance for non-medical cosmetic purposes. The animals used for clinical purpose safety testing in 2002 are a subset of those reported at column 1 of table 15 in the publication entitled Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain 2002 (Command 5886, available in the House Library). This relates to all protected animals used in safety testing of pharmaceuticals--those used for testing botulinum toxin are not identified separately. Although all the testing is undertaken using rodent species, the precise details of the numbers, breed and type are not collated centrally. This is also the case as regards earlier years. The amount of toxin used varies between testing programmes and studies, but licence authorities mandate only the use of the minimum intended to achieve the scientific objective.

Date

22 July 2004

Reference

181809; 424 c574W;424 c575W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 8th March 2004, 418 c1237W, on computerised MOT Test, if he will make it his policy to set a final date for the implementation of a computerised MOT test by Siemens Business Services, failing which he will...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 April 2004

Reference

420 c56W; 165796

House

House of Commons

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to review procedures for testing drugs.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

31 March 2004

Reference

419 c1513W;419 c1515W; 163901

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will introduce requirements for (a) eyesight tests, (b) a road test and road awareness programme, (c) a requirement to have insurance, (d) a set maintenance standard and (e) training and testing, for people wishing to drive motorised scooters and if...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

17 March 2004

Reference

161966; 419 c287-8W;419 c289-90W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answers of 8th March 2004, 418 c1237-8W, on computerised MOT test, what assessment his Department has made of the effects of succession planning of this project.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 March 2004

Reference

419 c172W; 161555

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answers of 8th March 2004 418 c1237-8W, on computerised MOT tests, what benefits were expected prior to tendering, of computerisation of the MOT test; and if he will make a statement on the disadvantages consequent on late delivery of...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 March 2004

Reference

419 c10-1W; 161497

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answers of 8th March 2004, 418 c1237-8W, on computerised MOT tests, under what circumstances the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency could terminate the contract.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 March 2004

Reference

419 c11W; 161498

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the (a) expected in-service delivery date and (b) cost of the computerised MOT test were when the contract was let; and what they are expected to be now.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

8 March 2004

Reference

159594; 418 c1237W;418 c1237-8W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what penalty clauses are available for his Department to invoke should Siemens fail to deliver the computerisation of the MOT test (a) on time, (b) within cost estimates and (c) to the specification.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

3 March 2004

For answer on

8 March 2004

Answered on

8 March 2004

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what penalty clauses are available for his Department to invoke should Siemens fail to deliver the computerisation of the MOT test (a) on time, (b) within cost estimates and (c) to the specification. [159595] Mr. Jamieson: This is a PFI contract between my Department's Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) and Siemens Business Services (SBS) and SBS bear the risk of late or unsatisfactory delivery of the service. The contract provides that if MOT Computerisation is not delivered: (a) on time--SBS would not receive payments under the contract until the computerised service is available to MOT stations and delay would reduce the term of the contract. Therefore SBS would be penalised by extra costs as well as reduced income and profit; (b) within cost estimates--under the contract SBS would bear the risk of increased development costs. They could also be subject to claims for liquidated and other damages for extra VOSA costs if they are responsible for delays; (c) to the specification--the system will not be rolled out to MOT stations until it has satisfactorily completed field trials against the specification. SBS would bear the cost of corrective action to meet the specification and of consequent delays and would not receive any payments until the service is operational. Under the contract VOSA can withhold some transaction payments from SBS if the operation of the system does not meet specified minimum service levels. As with any PFI contract VOSA has termination rights in specified circumstances.

Date

8 March 2004

Reference

418 c1237-8W;418 c1238-9W; 159595

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Over Thirty Month Scheme; what changes she plans to make to the scheme, and if she will make a statement; whether the Government will phase in the changes...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 September 2003

Reference

410 c482W;410 (Not in Bound Volume); 128383;128386

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

8 September 2003

Reference

128383;128386; 410 (Not in Daily Part);410 c286W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the extent of the supply and use of illicit drugs at Deepcut barracks over the last five years; how many personnel were tested; how many tests proved positive; what disciplinary action resulted; and if he...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 July 2003

Reference

125559; 409 c401W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 12th June from the honourable Member for Derby South, 406 c1005W, on animal welfare, what research his Department has commissioned into the effectiveness of (a) the inter-Departmental Concordat on Data Sharing and (b) measures in...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

17 June 2003

For answer on

25 June 2003

Answered on

25 June 2003

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 12 June 2003 from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), Official Report, column 1005W, on animal welfare, what research his Department has commissioned into the effectiveness of (a) the inter- departmental Concordat on Data Sharing and (b) measures in finding alternative methods of testing other than using animals; and if he will make a statement. [120445] Caroline Flint: The inter-Departmental Concordat on Data Sharing was announced in August 2000. Its aims included minimising data requirements for animal tests as far as possible, encouraging data sharing between clients, wherever appropriate, and seeking to overcome any procedural and legal barriers to data sharing. As it has now been in place for almost three years, we are reviewing its effectiveness. Accordingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), invited ministerial colleagues to review implementation of the Concordat and provide views on how it might be up dated. As to other measures, every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) a budget for the development and promotion of the 3Rs--alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. Details of completed research are published in the Annual Report of the Animal Procedures Committee, which is available from The Stationery Office and on the Committee's website. The amount being made available to the Committee for 2003-04 is £280,000. In addition, the Home Office leads the inter- Departmental Group on the 3Rs, whose terms of reference are to improve the application of the 3Rs and promote research into alternatives, reducing the need for toxicity testing through better sharing of data, and encouraging the validation and acceptance of alternatives. The Group is currently preparing revised guidance on the conduct of regulatory toxicology and safety evaluation studies and, arising from the Government response to the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures, has also been tasked with exploring the scope for a United Kingdom Centre for research into the 3Rs. We were also a co-sponsor of the fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences held in New Orleans in August 2002, publish a number of guidance and best practice documents on the Home Office web site and contribute regularly to events and activities intended to develop or promote work relating to the 3Rs.

Date

25 June 2003

Reference

120445; 407 c859-60W;407 c863-4W

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher

	Date	Location	Tested	Positive
2003	22 July	RM Band Portsmouth	54	0
2003	2 October	HMS Nelson	189	0
2004	21 April	RM School of Music	83	0
2004	9 November	HMS Nelson	188	0
2005	12 May	RM School of Music	44	0
2005	2 June	RM School of Music	10	0
2005	10 August	Nelson UPO	32	0
2005	25 October	Nelson PTIs and RN Boxing Team	47	0
⁽¹⁶⁾ new recruits