Category: Speeches

  • Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the potential benefits of using mobile telephone apps to use GPS to locate trained resuscitators and atrial fibrilation equipment to bring a rapid response to those who have suffered a heart attack.

    Jane Ellison

    The development of mobile device based Apps are being considered by NHS England across health and care settings and are still in development and launched the Health Apps Library in March 2013.

    NHS England is taking a leading role on apps in a number of areas:

    – Health Apps Library: In recognition of needing to support patients and the public in knowing which apps they can trust and that are safe. Only apps that have successfully completed a clinical safety review process are listed.

    – Overall United Kingdom Apps Review Framework: In recognising the need to help apps developers understand what review and regulation they need to go through, NHS England, the Health and Social Care Information Centre and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency are jointly working together to create an overall review framework for health apps.

    – Integrated apps: The future direction of apps is to move from lots of individual apps for specific purposes that are not linked to “integrated apps” that brings different pieces of information together.

    Sudden and unexpected cardiac arrest remains a major public health concern in all countries and can affect all ages.

    Defibrillators that can save many lives within minutes of the event are widely available, but rapid location of these and also trained community responders is an urgent and unmet need. Apps have been developed and several are in use but they will not achieve their full potential until integrated into a national scheme which NHS England is considering.

  • David Mowat – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    David Mowat – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Mowat on 2014-03-31.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much in legal aid claims has been paid to Leigh Day and Public Interest Lawyers in each of the last three years.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The net payments to these firms over the past three years are shown in the table below.

    Year

    Public Interest Lawyers

    Leigh Day & Co

    2010/11

    £439,268.02

    £1,182,080.21

    2011/12

    £331,238.85

    £1,216,888.66

    2012/13

    £54,387.48

    £569,730.45

    These payments cover all work undertaken by the firms under legal aid. The payments made will be offset by recoupment on successful cases where the opponent has paid the costs.

  • Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the findings of Mental Health Foundation research into the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on the reduction in patient visits to the GP.

    Norman Lamb

    No such assessment of the saving to the National Health Service from the use of mindfulness interventions to reduce the number of general practitioner visits has been made.

    The Department is aware of the Mental Health Foundation’s research into the impact of mindfulness. The benefits of mindfulness are widely recognised. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance for the NHS has recommended Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) for recurrent depression since 2004. MBCT is available through a number of Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in England.

  • Lord Wigley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Wigley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wigley on 2014-03-31.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with disability organisations with respect to the minimum size of parking restriction notices (1) on public highways, (2) in parking areas owned or managed by public authorities, and (3) in privately owned or managed parking areas that fall within the provisions of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    Baroness Kramer

    The Department for Transport has not discussed these issues directly with disability organisations. Regulations relating to road traffic are subject to full public consultation in accordance with Government consultation principles. Privately owned car parking facilities are covered by industry codes of practice.

  • Tracey Crouch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tracey Crouch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tracey Crouch on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) dogs, (b) cats and (c) horses were released from laboratories, returned and re-homed under the European Directive 2010/63/EU in the UK in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement on its success.

    Norman Baker

    The Home Office does not hold records of animals released from laboratories, returned and re-homed, under the European Directive 2010/63/EU, on its files.
    Records are kept locally at the licensed establishment to be made available to Home Office Inspectors on request.

  • Baroness King of Bow – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Baroness King of Bow – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness King of Bow on 2014-03-31.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much income from capital receipts from sales under the Right to Buy scheme has been paid to HM Treasury by local authorities in each year since 2010–11.

    Baroness Stowell of Beeston

    The table below answers the noble Lady’s question:

    Financial Year

    Receipts arising in that year1 from Right to Buy sales (or equivalents)2 which are payable to HM Treasury (£ million)3

    2010-20114

    114.4

    2011-2012

    138.9

    2012-2013

    123.6

    April 2013-December 2014

    120.85

    Notes

    1 Figures include the payable part of mortgage repayments and repayments of discounts paid in the current year in respect of Right to Buy sales made in previous years.

    2 For 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, figures include the payable part of receipts arising from all other disposals of dwellings. For 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, figures only include receipts arising from sales of dwellings to secure tenants which are below market value and some shared ownership sales.

    3 All figures are provisional, though those for all years up to 2012-2013 have been audited which means that they are less likely to be amended.

    4 Until the end of 2010-2011, receipts received by authorities which were debt-free on 31 March 2004 were payable not to HM Treasury but to the Department of Communities and Local Government and its predecessor departments.

    5 The figure for 2013-2014 is only for the first three quarters of that year.

    For 2009-2010, receipts arising from the sale of dwellings received by local authorities that were not debt-free that were paid to HM Treasury amounted to £132.7 million. For 2008-2009, the equivalent figure was £135.9 million.

    The reinvigoration of Right to Buy since April 2012 has ensured, for the first time ever, that the receipts from the additional sales (those over what was forecast prior to the change) are reinvested to help fund new homes for affordable rent. So far, £300 million has been generated from additional sales and already over 2,000 homes have been started on site or acquired.

  • David Simpson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Simpson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Simpson on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps the Government is taking to ensure that convictions are brought for possession of large quantities of illegal drugs.

    Norman Baker

    Action to restrict drug supply, including the investigation of drug offences and enabling the prosecution of those responsible, is a priority for law enforcement and other regulatory agencies. It is important that the courts are able to consider all the circumstances of any offence and offender which is why law enforcement agencies work closely with their prosecutors to provide the courts with the best evidence of an offence, presented in the most effective way.

    In addition to prosecution, law enforcement agencies and the Criminal Justice System in the UK have at their discretion a number of disposals available to deal with drug-related offenders, including referral for drug treatment. This ensures that a robust and proportionate enforcement approach can be taken, which gives due regard to the public interest.

  • Iain Wright – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Iain Wright – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Iain Wright on 2014-03-31.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, with reference to A UK strategy for agricultural technologies, what progress has been made in mapping and evaluating private and government funding available for research, translation and innovation.

    Mr David Willetts

    The UK Strategy for Agricultural Technologies contains a number of actions for Industry, Government and the science base.

    Action No 1 commits the Leadership Council, working alongside others, to conduct a comprehensive mapping and evaluation of private and Government funding available for research, translation and innovation.

    Work to deliver this action started at the end of March this year, led by the Agri-Tech Leadership Council. We expect the findings to be presented by the end of 2014.

  • Keith Vaz – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Keith Vaz – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keith Vaz on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how much of the £70 million which her Department offered to Yemen in 2013 for emergency food assistance, shelter, clean water and help for people recovering from conflict was provided to that country.

    Mr Alan Duncan

    DFID is one of the largest humanitarian donors to Yemen. We are committed to tackling the humanitarian crisis in the country including through the £70m of human assistance we offered in 2013. Last financial year we offered £32m of assistance, we have already allocated £33m for this year and the balance of the commitment will be allocated as soon as possible.

  • Angus Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Angus Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angus Robertson on 2014-03-31.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for what reasons the installation of an EASAMS Collision Warning System in Tornado aircraft was not completed following the successful trials of the system in 1995 and 1996.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    This technical demonstrator programme was aimed at evaluating the compatibility of the collision warning system concept in the fast jet environment. Technical demonstrator programmes are used to test the technical feasibility of new technology projects, often using experimental or conceptual technologies. They are not expected to produce equipment capable of being brought into service with the Armed Forces.