To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Written Question
Office for Budget Responsibility: Research
Tuesday 31st March 2026

Asked by: John Glen (Conservative - Salisbury)

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when she expects the Office for Budget Responsibility to publish its first set of areas of research interest, as stated in the Economic and Fiscal Outlook - November 2025, published on 26 November 2025.

Answered by Torsten Bell - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has full discretion over the timing of its own publication programme.


Written Question
Prescription Drugs: Costs
Monday 30th March 2026

Asked by: John Glen (Conservative - Salisbury)

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of reclassifying medicines from prescription-only to over-the-counter on costs to the NHS.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government supports the reclassification of prescription only medicines (POMs) to over the counter (OTC) medicines, including for cost savings to the National Health Service, where it is safe and appropriate to do so, as this can improve patient access and support selfcare while maintaining high standards of public health protection.

Decisions on whether POMs can be safely reclassified for OTC sale are taken by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency following an assessment of the safety, quality, and efficacy of the medicine and whether it can be appropriately used without the direct supervision of a prescriber.


Written Question
NHS: Drugs
Monday 30th March 2026

Asked by: John Glen (Conservative - Salisbury)

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what progress has been made by his Department in encouraging more reclassification applications to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); whether reclassification applications will form part of the MHRA's forthcoming strategy; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of reclassification applications on (a) the NHS, (b) patients and (c) the Exchequer.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government supports the reclassification of medicines where it is safe and appropriate to do so, as this can improve patient access and support selfcare while maintaining high standards of public health protection. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) actively engages with industry to encourage well evidenced reclassification applications and has updated its guidance and processes to provide greater clarity and efficiency.

Reclassification forms part of the MHRA’s wider strategic work to support proportionate regulation and improve access to medicines, including through closer engagement with industry and the use of scientific advice to support high quality applications.

Where successful, reclassification can benefit the National Health Service by reducing pressure on primary care services, enable patients to access appropriate treatments more conveniently through pharmacies or over the counter supply, and deliver wider economic benefits by supporting selfcare and reducing unnecessary healthcare utilisation. Each application is assessed on its individual merits to ensure that any reclassification maintains patient safety and delivers overall public benefit.

However, reclassification is not appropriate in all circumstances. In particular, where the need for ongoing clinical oversight remains important, or where cost or ability to pay could create barriers to equitable access for some patients, prescription supply through the NHS may remain the most appropriate route. Consideration of patient affordability and health inequalities forms part of the overall assessment of whether reclassification is in the public interest.


Speech in Commons Chamber - Thu 26 Mar 2026
Business of the House

"I represent Salisbury hospital, which has one of the eight specialist spinal units in the country. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). We are very concerned about the Government’s …..."
John Glen - View Speech

View all John Glen (Con - Salisbury) contributions to the debate on: Business of the House

Speech in Commons Chamber - Thu 26 Mar 2026
National Savings & Investments

"I welcome the actions that the Government are taking to restore trust in NS&I, and to take the appropriate compensation measures. I was in the Treasury for a while, and I had conversations with the previous chief executive—the one prior to 2023. Like the Minister, I took advice from my …..."
John Glen - View Speech

View all John Glen (Con - Salisbury) contributions to the debate on: National Savings & Investments

Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2026 - Victims and Courts Bill - View Vote Context
John Glen (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 84 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 295 Noes - 162
Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2026 - Victims and Courts Bill - View Vote Context
John Glen (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 82 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 290 Noes - 163
Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2026 - Victims and Courts Bill - View Vote Context
John Glen (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 83 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 292 Noes - 162
Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2026 - Victims and Courts Bill - View Vote Context
John Glen (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 82 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 291 Noes - 158
Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2026 - Victims and Courts Bill - View Vote Context
John Glen (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 85 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 286 Noes - 163