1-8 of 8 results for subject:"Risk assessment"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.193 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Risk assessment"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Risk assessment" OR subject_ses:12525
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Lords report stage second day. Amendment 17 agreed to. Amendment 21 disagreed to on division (167 to 228). Amendment 23 agreed to. Amendment 26 disagreed to on division (86 to 159). Amendment 38ZA (to amendment 38) disagreed to on division (174 to 207). Amendments 38A, 38B, 42 and 44 to 47 agreed to. Amendment 48 disagreed to on division (146 to 189). Amendments 50 to 52, 55, 61, 62, 63, 65 and 67 agreed to. Bill, as amended, ordered to be printed (HL Bill 80).
Lords report stage second day. Amendment 17 agreed to. Amendment 21 disagreed to on division (167 to 228). Amendment 23 agreed to. Amendment 26 disagreed to on division (86 to 159). Amendment 38ZA (to amendment 38) disagreed to on division (174 to 207). Amendments 38A, 38B, 42 and 44 to...
Lords report stage. Amendment 1 disagreed to on division (177 to 228). Amendment 2 disagreed to on division (189 to 232). (Part 1 of 2).
Lords report stage. Amendment 1 disagreed to on division (177 to 228). Amendment 2 disagreed to on division (189 to 232). (Part 1 of 2).
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of their response to the report by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, The use of Lariam for military personnel (4th Report, Session 2015–16), whether they have now ensured that “all anti-malaria drugs are only supplied after a face-to-face travel health risk...
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of their response to the report by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, The use of Lariam for military personnel (4th Report, Session 2015–16), whether they have now ensured that “all anti-malaria drugs are only supplied after a face-to-face travel health risk...
The Government's updated policy on Preventing Malaria in UK Armed Forces Personnel (Joint Service Publication 950, Part 1, Leaflet 3-3-1) makes it explicit that, if dispensed from a military source, all antimalarial drugs can only be prescribed after a face-to-face assessment with an appropriately trained and regulated healthcare professional has taken place.
The Official Statistic of 16 November 2017, Mefloquine Prescribing in the Armed Forces, shows that between 1 April and 30 September 2017, there were 40 prescriptions for mefloquine out of a total of 6,221 antimalarial prescriptions. Of those 40 prescriptions, 32 had an electronic coded entry on Defence Medical Information Capability Programme for a face-to-face assessment. However, this does not necessarily mean that 8 individuals did not have a face-to-face assessment. If the healthcare professional recorded it as free text rather than using a coded checkbox then it will not appear in the dataset. Of the 40 prescriptions, 28 had an electronic coded entry recording that an alternative antimalarial to mefloquine had been offered. Again, this does not necessarily mean that 12 individuals did not have an alternative offered, for the reasons previously stated.
Given healthcare professionals are permitted to record any part of a consultation in free text, it might be that a face-to-face assessment, or record of alternative antimalarials being offered, will not be recorded through an electronic coded entry in 100 per cent of cases.
Referring to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, methinks the Lib Dems are trying to rewrite history. They underpin this dreadful change that the 2012 Act brought to the NHS and they bear responsibility for the shambles that it has caused. I am very confused by the approach of the Department of Health. It has berated the National Health Service for not being open and transparent; in fact, it published a league table of those who are good and those who are not good. The NHS bodies are required to publish risk registers, so why should it be different for the Minister’s own department?
Referring to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, methinks the Lib Dems are trying to rewrite history. They underpin this dreadful change that the 2012 Act brought to the NHS and they bear responsibility for the shambles that it has caused. I am very confused by the approach of the Department of Health. It has berated the National Health Service for not being open and transparent; in fact, it published a league table of those who are good and those who are not good. The NHS bodies are required to publish risk registers, so why should it be different for the Minister’s own department?
The Government of which the noble Lord was such a distinguished member took the same approach to risk registers. Of course, transparency is an important principle in health and care. It is important to drive up performance and expose institutional failure, and I believe there is a revolution taking place in the level of transparency and access to health and care information. I am sure we are agreed on that. The point that I sought to make earlier is that when it comes to policy-making within government, Ministers and civil servants are entitled to some safe space, so the principle of transparency has to be moderated to a certain extent. That is the balance that we have struck.
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. To return to the Question asked by my noble friend, is it not a fact that officials warned Ministers that they would be introducing a shambolic reform of the health service? Those officials, much-maligned by the noble Lord’s ministerial colleagues, have been proved to be absolutely right. As we are all looking forward to the new musical by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, can the noble Earl tell me which will be published first: the full Profumo papers or the noble Earl’s risk register?
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. To return to the Question asked by my noble friend, is it not a fact that officials warned Ministers that they would be introducing a shambolic reform of the health service? Those officials, much-maligned by the noble Lord’s ministerial colleagues, have been proved to be absolutely right. As we are all looking forward to the new musical by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, can the noble Earl tell me which will be published first: the full Profumo papers or the noble Earl’s risk register?
My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord’s description of the transition, which has gone extremely smoothly. By most measures the NHS is performing very well indeed. Waiting times are low and stable, the number of people waiting more than 12 months has plummeted since 2010, hospital-acquired infections are at an all-time recorded low, we have more doctors and healthcare professionals in the system, and mixed-sex accommodation has been reduced to minimal levels. That does not indicate to me that the reforms have had a damaging effect—quite the reverse.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they consider the time will be right to publish the NHS risk register.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they consider the time will be right to publish the NHS risk register.
My Lords, the transition risk register will be published when the balance of public interest favours disclosure. We will continue to be open about risk. Last week we published a document containing information on all risk areas in the register, along with a scheme of publication for future review and release of information on risk.
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for that because he said that it would be published when the balance is in favour of the public interest. Can I take him back to the judgment of the First-tier Tribunal, which concluded that risk registers,
“would have provided the public with a far better understanding of the risks to a national institution”,
on which millions depend? Surely the public interest and parliamentary scrutiny actually depended on that risk register being published, and it should have been published when the Bill was in this House.
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for that because he said that it would be published when the balance is in favour of the public interest. Can I take him back to the judgment of the First-tier Tribunal, which concluded that risk registers,
“would have provided the public with a far better understanding of the risks to a national institution”,
on which millions depend? Surely the public interest and parliamentary scrutiny actually depended on that risk register being published, and it should have been published when the Bill was in this House.
My Lords, we do not agree with that. We have, as I have mentioned, published a document setting out a summary of all the risks in the register and the mitigating actions associated with each category, but we resist publishing the risk register itself at present. It is essential that officials are able to formulate sensitive advice to Ministers, making frank assessments and using direct language, without the fear of causing unnecessary embarrassment for the Government or damage to their area of policy. That is the essence of the reason.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ask HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to undertake a risk assessment of the proposals for elected police commissioners in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ask HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to undertake a risk assessment of the proposals for elected police commissioners in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.