The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has a clearly defined, published policy on conflicts of interest for members of its scientific advisory committees and groups. This policy has been in place for a number of years and defines the level of participation of experts in the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) and its Expert Groups.

Prior to being appointed to the CHM Expert Working Group (EWG) on Hormone Pregnancy Tests, all those invited to participate were required to complete and sign a declaration of interests form. At each meeting, experts were asked to declare any new interests. Experts with declared interests were precluded from participating in the EWG’s decision-making. Specific consideration was given to any concerns raised during the review and, in one case, led to one invited expert stepping down from the group before any scientific data were reviewed, even though the interest (a consultancy) had lapsed. All declared interests have been published.

In relation to the terms of reference of the EWG, an association between Hormone Pregnancy Tests and birth defects had long been the subject of debate, but the nature of any association remained uncertain. The EWG was formed specifically to review all the available evidence on the possible association between Hormone Pregnancy Tests during pregnancy and birth defects and reach a conclusion as to whether or not it supported a causal association. The terms of reference of the Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests defined the scope of the review, not the conclusion of the group, and did not change.

In November 2017 the Expert Working Group established by the Commission on Human Medicines to review hormone pregnancy tests concluded that the available evidence did not support a causal association with adverse pregnancy outcomes. At that time the Government made a commitment to evaluate carefully any new evidence. In February 2018 the Government asked Baroness Cumberlege to undertake a review into patients’ concerns and how these were responded to, and to advise what further action may be required.

Since then, a new ad hoc Expert Group of the Commission on Human Medicines has been convened to consider the recent meta-analysis published by Heneghan et al. of clinical studies. An independent review of this publication is also being conducted in parallel by the European Medicines Agency via a formal referral under European Union legal provisions. Both of these scientific reviews are ongoing and the conclusions will be made public when complete, likely in May.

While the review by Baroness Cumberlege into what further action may be required in the case of hormone pregnancy tests is ongoing, and pending the findings of the scientific reviews of Heneghan et al., the Government considers that it would be premature to have a further meeting with the All Party Parliamentary Group.

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State is planning to appoint a suitable independent person to report on the operation of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework by autumn 2018. The department is currently engaged in a process for identifying people who have both the required experience and can command the confidence of the sector.

During the review of higher level technical education, the government will consult widely with employers, education providers, students, and others with expertise in this area.

We are actively seeking evidence on best practice in higher level technical education, and we will publish further details about the review in due course.

This policy review looks across Levels 4 and 5 in education, focusing on how technical qualifications can better address the needs of learners and employers. It will enable the Government to produce a clear programme for T-Level students and set out their progression into higher education.

Following the review, the Government will implement its commitments set out within the Skills Plan.

We will continue consulting with employers, providers and other experts to ensure learners develop the knowledge they need for skilled employment or for further technical study.

I refer the hon. Member for Blackpool South to the answer I gave on 24 October 2017 to PQ 108669:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-10-19/108669/.

The first wave of area reviews began between September and November 2015.

No area reviews have yet been completed. Each review will take approximately three to four months to complete, taking local needs into account. We expect all reviews to be completed by March 2017.

The second wave of area reviews is due to begin in 2016. We have recently published details of the second wave, along with indicative information on later stages. Reviews covering Greater London are yet to be confirmed and will be announced shortly. We expect there to be around 40 reviews in total.

There are seven first wave area reviews currently underway. These are in Birmingham and Solihull, Greater Manchester, Sheffield City Region, Tees Valley, Sussex, Solent, and West Yorkshire. None of the first seven area reviews have met four times.

Yes. The Joint Area Review Delivery Unit supporting the area reviews will advise Hon. Membersas a matter of course when reviews are due to be undertaken in any part of their constituency.

Area reviews should take place as quickly as possible, the typical timescale being 3-4 months but this could vary depending on the number of colleges and complexity of the local issues involved.

The reviews are aimed at delivering a skills system that meets the economic and educational needs of areas whilst also ensuring the long term sustainability of colleges to support productivity. Their purpose is not to secure savings to Government. However, early evidence from the pilot reviews indicates that there is potential for the reviews to secure efficiency savings.

All applications to open a free school, academy, school sixth form or university technical college will be assessed on a case by case basis against the published criteria and taking account of local needs and circumstances.

Yes. The Joint Area Review Delivery Unit supporting the area reviews will advise Hon. Membersas a matter of course when reviews are due to be undertaken in any part of their constituency.

Area reviews should take place as quickly as possible, the typical timescale being 3-4 months but this could vary depending on the number of colleges and complexity of the local issues involved.

The reviews are aimed at delivering a skills system that meets the economic and educational needs of areas whilst also ensuring the long term sustainability of colleges to support productivity. Their purpose is not to secure savings to Government. However, early evidence from the pilot reviews indicates that there is potential for the reviews to secure efficiency savings.

All applications to open a free school, academy, school sixth form or university technical college will be assessed on a case by case basis against the published criteria and taking account of local needs and circumstances.

Yes. The Joint Area Review Delivery Unit supporting the area reviews will advise Hon. Membersas a matter of course when reviews are due to be undertaken in any part of their constituency.

Area reviews should take place as quickly as possible, the typical timescale being 3-4 months but this could vary depending on the number of colleges and complexity of the local issues involved.

The reviews are aimed at delivering a skills system that meets the economic and educational needs of areas whilst also ensuring the long term sustainability of colleges to support productivity. Their purpose is not to secure savings to Government. However, early evidence from the pilot reviews indicates that there is potential for the reviews to secure efficiency savings.

All applications to open a free school, academy, school sixth form or university technical college will be assessed on a case by case basis against the published criteria and taking account of local needs and circumstances.

Yes. The Joint Area Review Delivery Unit supporting the area reviews will advise Hon. Membersas a matter of course when reviews are due to be undertaken in any part of their constituency.

Area reviews should take place as quickly as possible, the typical timescale being 3-4 months but this could vary depending on the number of colleges and complexity of the local issues involved.

The reviews are aimed at delivering a skills system that meets the economic and educational needs of areas whilst also ensuring the long term sustainability of colleges to support productivity. Their purpose is not to secure savings to Government. However, early evidence from the pilot reviews indicates that there is potential for the reviews to secure efficiency savings.

All applications to open a free school, academy, school sixth form or university technical college will be assessed on a case by case basis against the published criteria and taking account of local needs and circumstances.

The Triennial Review of the Industry Training Boards is expected to be completed by the end of March 2014.