1-20 of 1,596 results for askedby:"Clive Efford"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.545 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- askedby:"Clive Efford"
- We searched for
- tablingMember_ses:300322 OR askingMember_ses:300322
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when she plans to publish the specifications for Haemophinia Care.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when she plans to publish the specifications for Haemophinia Care.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions she has had with Haemophilia Centre Doctors regarding the specification for Haemophilia care services.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions she has had with Haemophilia Centre Doctors regarding the specification for Haemophilia care services.
What steps she is taking to improve awareness of violence against women and girls in schools.
What steps she is taking to improve awareness of violence against women and girls in schools.
Tackling violence against women and girls is a moral mission for all of society, and education is an integral part. We are focussing on prevention; instilling the values and skills to disrupt dangerous attitudes and stop harmful behaviours from escalating.
We are supporting schools to challenge misogyny, launching major campaigns to raise awareness and change behaviour, and we are investing £16m to test the best ways to deliver the new RSHE curriculum, provide healthy relationships training and to help tackle harmful behaviours. This money will support teachers and schools in tackling this vital issue.
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has handled this issue and for the way he has moved it on in the short time he has been in office. Everyone is very grateful for that. None the less, he knows that there are still widespread concerns among the community about the compensation process. Will he guarantee that those people will continue to be listened to and that their voices will not be dismissed, so we can adapt the process as it goes forward to address some of their concerns? I am grateful to him for coming to the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to discuss this directly with the community. I would be grateful if he would do so again before the summer recess, so that people can talk to him directly about their concerns.
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has handled this issue and for the way he has moved it on in the short time he has been in office. Everyone is very grateful for that. None the less, he knows that there are still widespread concerns among the community about the compensation process. Will he guarantee that those people will continue to be listened to and that their voices will not be dismissed, so we can adapt the process as it goes forward to address some of their concerns? I am grateful to him for coming to the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to discuss this directly with the community. I would be grateful if he would do so again before the summer recess, so that people can talk to him directly about their concerns.
I look forward to an invitation from my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his work as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group. What he says about the voice of the community going forward is absolutely right. That is why I have created, and announced to the House, a mechanism by which concerns that are expressed are appropriately elevated to where decisions need to be made. I was determined not to have some sort of glorified post box that people sent correspondence into. If concerns are raised, they must be dealt with at the appropriate level, whether that is the Infected Blood Compensation Authority board, or escalated to the Cabinet Office.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what progress is being made in replacing plasma-derived products with recombinant coagulation factor products, where clinically appropriate, in accordance with Recommendation 9 of the Infected Blood Inquiry Report.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what progress is being made in replacing plasma-derived products with recombinant coagulation factor products, where clinically appropriate, in accordance with Recommendation 9 of the Infected Blood Inquiry Report.
It is crucial we protect the safety of haemophilia care, and the Government is committed to implementing recommendation 9 of the 2024 Infected Blood Inquiry report.
The Government is committed to improving the lives of those living with rare diseases, such as haemophilia. The UK Rare Diseases Framework sets out four priorities collaboratively developed with the rare disease community: these include getting a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better coordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatments, and drugs. We published the fifth annual England action plan in February 2026, where we report on the steps we have taken to advance these priorities.
In relation to recommendation 9, a to c, of the Infected Blood Inquiry, peer review of United Kingdom comprehensive care centres has been an essential part of haemophilia services for many years. The triennial audit was replaced in 2019 with a more formal peer review process on a five-year cycle.
The final peer review report is expected to be published imminently and once published, it will be shared with the NHS England Specialised Commissioning Quality Oversight Group for consideration and action. This will be supported by a letter to integrated care boards and trust boards, emphasising the valuable role of peer review and asking for confirmation of their commitment to review and implement the peer review findings.
The Haemophilia Service Specification has been updated by the Blood Disorders Clinical Reference Group and is making its way through final approvals, having undergone public consultation. The new specification includes a contractual requirement for providers to participate in and act upon peer review findings.
Regarding 9d, the Clinical Community and the NHS England Clinical Reference Group for Blood Disorders supports the need to develop and strengthen multi-disciplinary networks. NHS England has drafted a proposed National Clinical Network Specification specifically for these networks, which is dependent on additional funding, and which would embed key new requirements for providers to participate in a networked model of care.
In response to 9e, all diseases or conditions where a non-plasma treatment exists to replace a plasma/blood-derived treatment are now addressed by commissioning policies or funding agreements. There are some specific regimens which are subject to ongoing clinical policy development but in each case there are alternative regimens or treatment approaches which negate the use of plasma-derived medicines.
Of particular interest to the clinical and patient community is the development of a clinical commissioning policy for recombinant Von Willebrand factor, which is currently licensed for prophylaxis in adults, as regular treatment for those with the severest bleeding, but which is not currently commissioned for this indication. Funding will be required to implement this clinical policy for all ages, and this has not yet been identified.
Finally, for 9f, NHS England currently provides ‘central’ funding of approximately 40% of the total annual cost for running the National Haemophilia Database. A task and finish group relating to the database has been established, reporting into the overarching recommendation 9 expert group.
As of February 2026, stakeholders involved in the recommendation 9f working group are in agreement that the registry has been and remains immensely valuable in supporting the provision of clinical care. NHS England continues to work with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centres Doctors' Organisation to understand the requirement for increased funding.
Further progress on implementing recommendation 9 is subject to additional funding, and this has not yet been identified. NHS England and the Department will continue to work together to provide progress updates on the Government Reporting Integration Platform.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what consideration he has given to supporting the National Haemophilia Database through additional central funding.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what consideration he has given to supporting the National Haemophilia Database through additional central funding.
It is crucial we protect the safety of haemophilia care, and the Government is committed to implementing recommendation 9 of the 2024 Infected Blood Inquiry report.
The Government is committed to improving the lives of those living with rare diseases, such as haemophilia. The UK Rare Diseases Framework sets out four priorities collaboratively developed with the rare disease community: these include getting a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better coordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatments, and drugs. We published the fifth annual England action plan in February 2026, where we report on the steps we have taken to advance these priorities.
In relation to recommendation 9, a to c, of the Infected Blood Inquiry, peer review of United Kingdom comprehensive care centres has been an essential part of haemophilia services for many years. The triennial audit was replaced in 2019 with a more formal peer review process on a five-year cycle.
The final peer review report is expected to be published imminently and once published, it will be shared with the NHS England Specialised Commissioning Quality Oversight Group for consideration and action. This will be supported by a letter to integrated care boards and trust boards, emphasising the valuable role of peer review and asking for confirmation of their commitment to review and implement the peer review findings.
The Haemophilia Service Specification has been updated by the Blood Disorders Clinical Reference Group and is making its way through final approvals, having undergone public consultation. The new specification includes a contractual requirement for providers to participate in and act upon peer review findings.
Regarding 9d, the Clinical Community and the NHS England Clinical Reference Group for Blood Disorders supports the need to develop and strengthen multi-disciplinary networks. NHS England has drafted a proposed National Clinical Network Specification specifically for these networks, which is dependent on additional funding, and which would embed key new requirements for providers to participate in a networked model of care.
In response to 9e, all diseases or conditions where a non-plasma treatment exists to replace a plasma/blood-derived treatment are now addressed by commissioning policies or funding agreements. There are some specific regimens which are subject to ongoing clinical policy development but in each case there are alternative regimens or treatment approaches which negate the use of plasma-derived medicines.
Of particular interest to the clinical and patient community is the development of a clinical commissioning policy for recombinant Von Willebrand factor, which is currently licensed for prophylaxis in adults, as regular treatment for those with the severest bleeding, but which is not currently commissioned for this indication. Funding will be required to implement this clinical policy for all ages, and this has not yet been identified.
Finally, for 9f, NHS England currently provides ‘central’ funding of approximately 40% of the total annual cost for running the National Haemophilia Database. A task and finish group relating to the database has been established, reporting into the overarching recommendation 9 expert group.
As of February 2026, stakeholders involved in the recommendation 9f working group are in agreement that the registry has been and remains immensely valuable in supporting the provision of clinical care. NHS England continues to work with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centres Doctors' Organisation to understand the requirement for increased funding.
Further progress on implementing recommendation 9 is subject to additional funding, and this has not yet been identified. NHS England and the Department will continue to work together to provide progress updates on the Government Reporting Integration Platform.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what progress he has made on establishing functioning multi-disciplinary networks to ensure best practice is followed in the treatment and care of haemophilia.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what progress he has made on establishing functioning multi-disciplinary networks to ensure best practice is followed in the treatment and care of haemophilia.
It is crucial we protect the safety of haemophilia care, and the Government is committed to implementing recommendation 9 of the 2024 Infected Blood Inquiry report.
The Government is committed to improving the lives of those living with rare diseases, such as haemophilia. The UK Rare Diseases Framework sets out four priorities collaboratively developed with the rare disease community: these include getting a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better coordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatments, and drugs. We published the fifth annual England action plan in February 2026, where we report on the steps we have taken to advance these priorities.
In relation to recommendation 9, a to c, of the Infected Blood Inquiry, peer review of United Kingdom comprehensive care centres has been an essential part of haemophilia services for many years. The triennial audit was replaced in 2019 with a more formal peer review process on a five-year cycle.
The final peer review report is expected to be published imminently and once published, it will be shared with the NHS England Specialised Commissioning Quality Oversight Group for consideration and action. This will be supported by a letter to integrated care boards and trust boards, emphasising the valuable role of peer review and asking for confirmation of their commitment to review and implement the peer review findings.
The Haemophilia Service Specification has been updated by the Blood Disorders Clinical Reference Group and is making its way through final approvals, having undergone public consultation. The new specification includes a contractual requirement for providers to participate in and act upon peer review findings.
Regarding 9d, the Clinical Community and the NHS England Clinical Reference Group for Blood Disorders supports the need to develop and strengthen multi-disciplinary networks. NHS England has drafted a proposed National Clinical Network Specification specifically for these networks, which is dependent on additional funding, and which would embed key new requirements for providers to participate in a networked model of care.
In response to 9e, all diseases or conditions where a non-plasma treatment exists to replace a plasma/blood-derived treatment are now addressed by commissioning policies or funding agreements. There are some specific regimens which are subject to ongoing clinical policy development but in each case there are alternative regimens or treatment approaches which negate the use of plasma-derived medicines.
Of particular interest to the clinical and patient community is the development of a clinical commissioning policy for recombinant Von Willebrand factor, which is currently licensed for prophylaxis in adults, as regular treatment for those with the severest bleeding, but which is not currently commissioned for this indication. Funding will be required to implement this clinical policy for all ages, and this has not yet been identified.
Finally, for 9f, NHS England currently provides ‘central’ funding of approximately 40% of the total annual cost for running the National Haemophilia Database. A task and finish group relating to the database has been established, reporting into the overarching recommendation 9 expert group.
As of February 2026, stakeholders involved in the recommendation 9f working group are in agreement that the registry has been and remains immensely valuable in supporting the provision of clinical care. NHS England continues to work with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centres Doctors' Organisation to understand the requirement for increased funding.
Further progress on implementing recommendation 9 is subject to additional funding, and this has not yet been identified. NHS England and the Department will continue to work together to provide progress updates on the Government Reporting Integration Platform.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps have been taken to address funding shortfalls and inequities between haemophilia centres around the UK, identified by 2024-25 peer review of haemophilia care.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps have been taken to address funding shortfalls and inequities between haemophilia centres around the UK, identified by 2024-25 peer review of haemophilia care.
It is crucial we protect the safety of haemophilia care, and the Government is committed to implementing recommendation 9 of the 2024 Infected Blood Inquiry report.
The Government is committed to improving the lives of those living with rare diseases, such as haemophilia. The UK Rare Diseases Framework sets out four priorities collaboratively developed with the rare disease community: these include getting a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better coordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatments, and drugs. We published the fifth annual England action plan in February 2026, where we report on the steps we have taken to advance these priorities.
In relation to recommendation 9, a to c, of the Infected Blood Inquiry, peer review of United Kingdom comprehensive care centres has been an essential part of haemophilia services for many years. The triennial audit was replaced in 2019 with a more formal peer review process on a five-year cycle.
The final peer review report is expected to be published imminently and once published, it will be shared with the NHS England Specialised Commissioning Quality Oversight Group for consideration and action. This will be supported by a letter to integrated care boards and trust boards, emphasising the valuable role of peer review and asking for confirmation of their commitment to review and implement the peer review findings.
The Haemophilia Service Specification has been updated by the Blood Disorders Clinical Reference Group and is making its way through final approvals, having undergone public consultation. The new specification includes a contractual requirement for providers to participate in and act upon peer review findings.
Regarding 9d, the Clinical Community and the NHS England Clinical Reference Group for Blood Disorders supports the need to develop and strengthen multi-disciplinary networks. NHS England has drafted a proposed National Clinical Network Specification specifically for these networks, which is dependent on additional funding, and which would embed key new requirements for providers to participate in a networked model of care.
In response to 9e, all diseases or conditions where a non-plasma treatment exists to replace a plasma/blood-derived treatment are now addressed by commissioning policies or funding agreements. There are some specific regimens which are subject to ongoing clinical policy development but in each case there are alternative regimens or treatment approaches which negate the use of plasma-derived medicines.
Of particular interest to the clinical and patient community is the development of a clinical commissioning policy for recombinant Von Willebrand factor, which is currently licensed for prophylaxis in adults, as regular treatment for those with the severest bleeding, but which is not currently commissioned for this indication. Funding will be required to implement this clinical policy for all ages, and this has not yet been identified.
Finally, for 9f, NHS England currently provides ‘central’ funding of approximately 40% of the total annual cost for running the National Haemophilia Database. A task and finish group relating to the database has been established, reporting into the overarching recommendation 9 expert group.
As of February 2026, stakeholders involved in the recommendation 9f working group are in agreement that the registry has been and remains immensely valuable in supporting the provision of clinical care. NHS England continues to work with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centres Doctors' Organisation to understand the requirement for increased funding.
Further progress on implementing recommendation 9 is subject to additional funding, and this has not yet been identified. NHS England and the Department will continue to work together to provide progress updates on the Government Reporting Integration Platform.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps have been taken towards implementing Recommendation 9 of the Infected Blood Inquiry.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps have been taken towards implementing Recommendation 9 of the Infected Blood Inquiry.
It is crucial we protect the safety of haemophilia care, and the Government is committed to implementing recommendation 9 of the 2024 Infected Blood Inquiry report.
The Government is committed to improving the lives of those living with rare diseases, such as haemophilia. The UK Rare Diseases Framework sets out four priorities collaboratively developed with the rare disease community: these include getting a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better coordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatments, and drugs. We published the fifth annual England action plan in February 2026, where we report on the steps we have taken to advance these priorities.
In relation to recommendation 9, a to c, of the Infected Blood Inquiry, peer review of United Kingdom comprehensive care centres has been an essential part of haemophilia services for many years. The triennial audit was replaced in 2019 with a more formal peer review process on a five-year cycle.
The final peer review report is expected to be published imminently and once published, it will be shared with the NHS England Specialised Commissioning Quality Oversight Group for consideration and action. This will be supported by a letter to integrated care boards and trust boards, emphasising the valuable role of peer review and asking for confirmation of their commitment to review and implement the peer review findings.
The Haemophilia Service Specification has been updated by the Blood Disorders Clinical Reference Group and is making its way through final approvals, having undergone public consultation. The new specification includes a contractual requirement for providers to participate in and act upon peer review findings.
Regarding 9d, the Clinical Community and the NHS England Clinical Reference Group for Blood Disorders supports the need to develop and strengthen multi-disciplinary networks. NHS England has drafted a proposed National Clinical Network Specification specifically for these networks, which is dependent on additional funding, and which would embed key new requirements for providers to participate in a networked model of care.
In response to 9e, all diseases or conditions where a non-plasma treatment exists to replace a plasma/blood-derived treatment are now addressed by commissioning policies or funding agreements. There are some specific regimens which are subject to ongoing clinical policy development but in each case there are alternative regimens or treatment approaches which negate the use of plasma-derived medicines.
Of particular interest to the clinical and patient community is the development of a clinical commissioning policy for recombinant Von Willebrand factor, which is currently licensed for prophylaxis in adults, as regular treatment for those with the severest bleeding, but which is not currently commissioned for this indication. Funding will be required to implement this clinical policy for all ages, and this has not yet been identified.
Finally, for 9f, NHS England currently provides ‘central’ funding of approximately 40% of the total annual cost for running the National Haemophilia Database. A task and finish group relating to the database has been established, reporting into the overarching recommendation 9 expert group.
As of February 2026, stakeholders involved in the recommendation 9f working group are in agreement that the registry has been and remains immensely valuable in supporting the provision of clinical care. NHS England continues to work with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centres Doctors' Organisation to understand the requirement for increased funding.
Further progress on implementing recommendation 9 is subject to additional funding, and this has not yet been identified. NHS England and the Department will continue to work together to provide progress updates on the Government Reporting Integration Platform.
We are looking forward to welcoming the Paymaster General at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood in the near future. He knows my constituent Mary Grindley, who has been a prominent campaigner. She lost her husband, and since then has campaigned for over half her life for compensation. She has recently been in touch with me to say that those making claims for the loss of loved ones are concerned about the lack of speed with which payments are being made. Will he update the House in future, if not now, on progress in paying those who were affected, rather than infected?
We are looking forward to welcoming the Paymaster General at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood in the near future. He knows my constituent Mary Grindley, who has been a prominent campaigner. She lost her husband, and since then has campaigned for over half her life for compensation. She has recently been in touch with me to say that those making claims for the loss of loved ones are concerned about the lack of speed with which payments are being made. Will he update the House in future, if not now, on progress in paying those who were affected, rather than infected?
The milestones that were set out for paying infected people were met by the end of 2025. The first payment to an affected person was also on time, and was made before the end of last year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are now moving into a new phase of paying affected people, which will clearly be a larger number. I will, of course, happily write to him with the precise figures on that.
What steps she is taking to reduce Government borrowing.
What steps she is taking to reduce Government borrowing.
We need to address the UK’s borrowing and debt, so we spend less on debt interest and more on the priorities of working people.
The government has a credible consolidation plan that ensures borrowing is falling in every year of the forecast. Borrowing this year is set to be the lowest for 6 years.
The government is reducing borrowing while protecting investment, and is maintaining an increase of over £120 billion departmental capital spending over the Parliament.
From 2025 to 2030, the UK is reducing government borrowing more than any other G7 country.
I draw Ministers’ attention to the Prostate Cancer Research report published last week. It busts the myth that a screening programme for prostate cancer would cost the NHS too much money. It would focus on the people most at risk—in other words, black men over the age of 45, and those who, like me, have a history of it in their family. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending this report to the UK National Screening Committee?
I draw Ministers’ attention to the Prostate Cancer Research report published last week. It busts the myth that a screening programme for prostate cancer would cost the NHS too much money. It would focus on the people most at risk—in other words, black men over the age of 45, and those who, like me, have a history of it in their family. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending this report to the UK National Screening Committee?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and the inequalities to which he draws our attention. We will look at that report carefully. I am awaiting the recommendation of the UK National Screening Committee. We will look carefully at that, and I will report to the House on our decision.
Further to Ministers’ earlier answers about waiting lists in Crown and magistrates courts, coroners courts also have a large backlog. I have a constituent who has been waiting nearly three years for an inquest to be completed. What can be done to relieve the pressure on grieving families who have been bereaved and to speed up the process?
Further to Ministers’ earlier answers about waiting lists in Crown and magistrates courts, coroners courts also have a large backlog. I have a constituent who has been waiting nearly three years for an inquest to be completed. What can be done to relieve the pressure on grieving families who have been bereaved and to speed up the process?
I have had several productive conversations with the chief coroner, looking at how we can make the inquest process as quick as possible to ensure that the bereaved are supported and not left traumatised waiting for their inquest. The Bill we are laying before Parliament today, the Hillsborough law, has many parts looking at how to improve the inquest process and it gives more powers to coroners. We are looking at what more we can do on the reform of inquests. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others on how to improve the coronial process.
Further to the answer given by the Paymaster General regarding the contaminated blood inquiry, I welcome that he will update the House when he has had an opportunity to digest yesterday’s report, but can I have an assurance from him that it will not be on the last sitting day before recess?
Further to the answer given by the Paymaster General regarding the contaminated blood inquiry, I welcome that he will update the House when he has had an opportunity to digest yesterday’s report, but can I have an assurance from him that it will not be on the last sitting day before recess?
I may be in the hands of Mr Speaker so I will certainly not tread on to which days I will be permitted to do so, but definitely before the summer recess.
Sir Brian Langstaff was particularly critical of the engagement with the infected and affected community since the publication of his final report in May last year. In particular, he was critical of the way the expert group was set up with the explicit instruction not to engage with the community. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a lot of damage has been done since the publication of that final report, as is exposed in the report that Sir Brian Langstaff published yesterday? Will he say what he intends to do to improve relationships with the infected and the affected?
Sir Brian Langstaff was particularly critical of the engagement with the infected and affected community since the publication of his final report in May last year. In particular, he was critical of the way the expert group was set up with the explicit instruction not to engage with the community. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a lot of damage has been done since the publication of that final report, as is exposed in the report that Sir Brian Langstaff published yesterday? Will he say what he intends to do to improve relationships with the infected and the affected?
I am deeply sympathetic to the inquiry’s words on the involvement of the infected blood community. The Government are committed to providing fair compensation to victims of this scandal. The inquiry recognised this and said:
“There can be no doubt that the Government has done right in ways which powerfully signal its intent.”
However, I also recognise what Sir Brian said when he stated that
“there is still more to be done to ensure that the detail and operation of the scheme matches up to its intent.”
I will now urgently look at those recommendations with a view to action.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions he has had NHS England on the future (a) oversight and (b) regulation of (i) specialist pharmacies and (ii) aseptic services within hospitals.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions he has had NHS England on the future (a) oversight and (b) regulation of (i) specialist pharmacies and (ii) aseptic services within hospitals.
The Department has asked NHS England to continue to progress work on the Infusions and Special Medicines Programme, which is tasked with the implementation of Lord Carter’ 2020 report, Transforming Pharmacy Aseptic Services in England. The work included publication of guidance for the quality assurance of aseptic production in National Health Service hospitals and improved audits in unlicensed aseptic medicines preparation units, using digital tools to improve the transparency of the work. These hospital aseptic medicines preparation units make unlicensed ‘special’ medicines, which include ready to administer chemotherapy injections and intravenous nutrition products. The majority of these units are regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
A minority of aseptic medicines preparation services in hospitals are licensed units with a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Specials Authorisation. These units are regulated by the MHRA.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to help ensure the (a) oversight and (b) regulation of (i) specialist pharmacies and (ii) aseptic services within hospitals.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to help ensure the (a) oversight and (b) regulation of (i) specialist pharmacies and (ii) aseptic services within hospitals.
The Department has asked NHS England to continue to progress work on the Infusions and Special Medicines Programme, which is tasked with the implementation of Lord Carter’ 2020 report, Transforming Pharmacy Aseptic Services in England. The work included publication of guidance for the quality assurance of aseptic production in National Health Service hospitals and improved audits in unlicensed aseptic medicines preparation units, using digital tools to improve the transparency of the work. These hospital aseptic medicines preparation units make unlicensed ‘special’ medicines, which include ready to administer chemotherapy injections and intravenous nutrition products. The majority of these units are regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
A minority of aseptic medicines preparation services in hospitals are licensed units with a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Specials Authorisation. These units are regulated by the MHRA.
At yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, we heard from someone whose father was terminally ill and unlikely to survive to see the compensation to which he is entitled. It is not fair on people who have waited 40 years for justice that they are left at the starting line for compensation. Is there any way we can make a list of people who are in that situation and calculate their entitlement for their estate?
At yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, we heard from someone whose father was terminally ill and unlikely to survive to see the compensation to which he is entitled. It is not fair on people who have waited 40 years for justice that they are left at the starting line for compensation. Is there any way we can make a list of people who are in that situation and calculate their entitlement for their estate?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group. He will know that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has published a prioritisation list in recent months. I can also update the House that IBCA is contacting an average of 100 people every week to start their claim, and it expects in this calendar year to have brought in to claim all those who are infected and registered with a support scheme.
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 June.
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 June.
Today we are investing £15.6 billion in the transport infrastructure of the north and of the midlands. We are decisively turning the page on a failed economic model of low investment, and we are backing the talent and prospects of the whole country. Over the coming weeks we will set out plans for further investment and renewal.
Our strategic defence review shows that this Government will never gamble with our national security. Through the biggest sustained funding increase since the cold war, we will transform our defence, strengthen our nation and invest in jobs and industry across the United Kingdom.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
We all remember the glorious summer of 2012 when the world’s greatest athletes came to London to compete in the Olympics and the Paralympics. It showcased Britain at its best, not just in track and field, but as a country that can host major cultural and sporting events. My right hon. and learned Friend has been written to by over 200 of our top athletes—some of them are members of Cambridge Harriers, who meet in my constituency—and they are calling for the Government to support the bid for the 2029 world athletics championships to take place in London. If successful, it will lift the whole nation—[Interruption.] If successful, it will lift the whole nation, inspire a generation of new athletes, showcase Britain on the world stage and put £400 million into our economy. What’s not to like?
We all remember the glorious summer of 2012 when the world’s greatest athletes came to London to compete in the Olympics and the Paralympics. It showcased Britain at its best, not just in track and field, but as a country that can host major cultural and sporting events. My right hon. and learned Friend has been written to by over 200 of our top athletes—some of them are members of Cambridge Harriers, who meet in my constituency—and they are calling for the Government to support the bid for the 2029 world athletics championships to take place in London. If successful, it will lift the whole nation—[Interruption.] If successful, it will lift the whole nation, inspire a generation of new athletes, showcase Britain on the world stage and put £400 million into our economy. What’s not to like?
One of the greatest achievements of the last Labour Government was the 2012 Olympics in London, and we all remember it—[Interruption.] Given that response, can I pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Tessa Jowell to those games? I agree that there have been huge economic benefits from hosting major sporting events as well as an important legacy.