Tag: Lord Greaves

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the quality and availability of tests for Lyme disease and related diseases in (1) the United Kingdom, (2) the rest of the European Union, and (3) North America.

Earl Howe

Public Health England (PHE) actively reviews test methodologies for Lyme disease based on peer reviewed reports and on evaluation of possible alternative test kits within the laboratory. As part of this work, staff from the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL) have attended international conferences, including those organised by pressure groups proposing alternative testing systems to those used in state laboratories, and met with private and state laboratory service providers in Europe and the United States.

RIPL offers a telephone advice line to clinicians with problem cases, and also works with the patient charity Lyme Disease Action to address the needs of individual patients. RIPL also participates in a European external quality assessment programme, and cross-compares results with Raigmore Hospital in Scotland.

All diagnostic tests for infectious diseases are less sensitive in the very early stages of disease, and the results of a laboratory test have to be interpreted in this light and in conjunction with the patient’s presentation. Whilst the current tests are not perfect, none of the alternatives have yet proven superior to accepted methodologies. Any novel methods to test for Lyme disease are kept under review.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent of Lyme disease in the United Kingdom in (1) sheep, (2) other farm animals, (3) domestic animals, and (4) wild animals; and what action they are taking to reduce the number of infected animals.

Lord De Mauley

Defra has made no formal assessment of the extent of Lyme disease in the United Kingdom in livestock, domestic or wild animals. However a number of surveillance studies have shown that the main carriers of the Borrelia organism that causes Lyme disease in people and dogs are small wild mammals (for example mice and voles) and ground nesting birds. Other studies have looked at the role of cattle, sheep and deer as hosts for the intermediate tick host, although these species do not maintain infection with the organism. No action is taken to reduce the number of infected wild animals. Action to reduce the number of infected wild animals could only be taken at disproportionate cost.

Control of the disease in people is focussed on public awareness of the importance of preventing tick bites. Factsheets on tick bite risk and prevention are produced by Public Health England and Lyme Disease Action, with further information for patients published by NHS Choices. Veterinary advice on the prevention of infection in dogs is widely available through private practitioners and a vaccine for dogs is now licensed.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-02-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice they have given to police forces on the action to be taken in relation to information on persons who have ordered or received copies of Charlie Hebdo from their newsagents or in other ways, and whether such information should be collected; and which police forces have collected any such information.

Lord Bates

In line with their operational independence, this is an issue on which appropriate action is taken by the police as required.

The police Security Review Committee process considers terrorist threats to all communities across the UK, and considers the appropriate policing response, including any protective security requirements, advice and guidance, to respond to any emerging threats.

I understand that the police assessed the risks arising from the sale of the magazine Charlie Hedbo in the UK after events in Paris, and provided appropriate advice to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers of the magazine. There was no centrally co-ordinated request to collect information on individuals who ordered or received copies.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-10-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which railway schemes will be funded out of the £13 billion funding that has been allocated to the Northern Powerhouse, and what is the expected cost of each individual scheme.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

During the March 2015 budget, funding of £13bn was identified to maintain and improve transport infrastructure in the north. A variety of railway schemes have already been completed across the north of England as part of our long term investment in building the Northern Powerhouse, such as the recently transformed Manchester Victoria station, and work is progressing on other schemes including work to prepare the railway between Manchester and Preston via Bolton for electrification which is under way at Farnworth Tunnel. Sir Peter Hendy’s review of Network Rail’s enhancements programme is still in progress. A firm list of schemes and costs cannot be produced until this process is completed.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-09-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in relation to the webpages of the Communities and Local Government and Home Office sections of gov.uk entitled Syria refugees: what you can do to help, how many responses they have had in the first week from (1) the general public, (2) local authorities, (3) education providers, and (4) religious organisations, offering help under each of the headings; and what system they have set up for dealing with those responses.

Lord Bates

The response of the British public has been one of overwhelming generosity. In order to harness that response, the Government has established a webpage on gov.uk containing useful information on where to find further advice to frequently asked questions. The webpage has generated significant traffic in the last week, and aims to direct the public towards the most relevant information or bodies through which they can help, such as the Local Government Association website, or the websites of relevant charities and Non Governmental Associations. We are working closely with key partners to ensure that the offers received are captured by the appropriate organisation or body.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-09-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much of the funding allocated for the Northern Powerhouse will be spent on (1) repairs of potholes and damaged carriageways, and (2) other highway maintenance that would normally come out of annual revenue budgets; and how much of such spending will be allocated to (a) the Highways Agency, and (b) local highways authorities.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Department for Transport is allocating £1.3billion capital funding between 2015 and 2021 to local highway authorities that fall within the Northern Powerhouse for local highways maintenance. This funding can be used to repair potholes. The funding is not ring-fenced and it is entirely for each highway authority to decide, based on their needs and priorities, as to how this funding is spent. In addition the funding the Department for Transport allocated to local highway authorities in England to improve road conditions was £1 billion more over the last Parliament compared to what was provided between 2005 and 2010.

Local authorities are able to use revenue funding for maintaining their local highways and this is allocated by the Department of Communities and Local Government through the Revenue Support Grant.

The Department for Transport is funding a local highways maintenance project in Sheffield as well as street lighting schemes in Blackpool, Knowsley, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Oldham, Redcar & Cleveland, Rochdale, South Tyneside, Sunderland and Wakefield, through the Private Finance Initiative.

In addition we are also allocating £2.9 billion for improvements to the strategic road network within the Northern Powerhouse managed by Highways England as set out in the Road Investment Strategy published in March 2015 for the period between 2015 and 2020.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-09-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in considering whether to call in planning applications for schemes involving hydraulic fracturing that have taken longer than 16 weeks to be decided upon, they will count the 16 weeks from (1) the date the application was first received by the Minerals Planning Authority or (2) the date the application was registered; and whether, in either case, they will take into account (a) the timetable agreed between the applicant and the planning authority, even if that is for longer than 16 weeks, (b) delays caused by the failure of the applicant to provide the necessary information, (c) delays caused by defects in the application, (d) delays caused by amendments to the application, (e) an estimate of the additional costs likely to result from calling in the application, and (f) whether a call-in will result in a greater delay than allowing the planning authority to continue to deal with it.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

I refer the noble Lord to the written ministerial statements of 16 September, HLWS194 and HLWS195, which set out a number of measures to enable planning applications and appeals relating to shale gas and oil to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

These include a commitment by the Secretary of State to actively consider calling-in shale planning applications. Separately, a scheme has been put in place to identify local planning authority underperformance in respect of their determination of oil and gas planning applications. The scheme uses the same threshold of underperformance set out in the document ‘Improving planning performance – Criteria for designation’, of 50% or fewer applications being made within the relevant statutory time limit, or such extended period as has been agreed in writing by the applicant. The statutory time limit applies once an application has been validated by the local planning authority. Where an authority is identified as underperforming under the scheme, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will actively consider calling-in for his determination oil and gas planning applications that are validated by that authority, in accordance with existing policy.

The decision on whether to call-in any application will be taken in line with current call-in policy. Any applications relating to shale gas that are called-in would be prioritised for urgent resolution.

If the Secretary of State were to grant a planning permission in respect of a called-in application, then any details of the scheme that are the subject of planning conditions would need to be submitted to and approved by the relevant local planning authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-09-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the case of planning applications for schemes involving hydraulic fracturing that have been determined by the Secretary of State after being called in as a result of the failure of the Minerals Planning Authority to do so within 16 weeks, any conditions that require further approval of details of the scheme will be dealt with by application to (1) the planning authority, or (2) the Secretary of State.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

I refer the noble Lord to the written ministerial statements of 16 September, HLWS194 and HLWS195, which set out a number of measures to enable planning applications and appeals relating to shale gas and oil to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

These include a commitment by the Secretary of State to actively consider calling-in shale planning applications. Separately, a scheme has been put in place to identify local planning authority underperformance in respect of their determination of oil and gas planning applications. The scheme uses the same threshold of underperformance set out in the document ‘Improving planning performance – Criteria for designation’, of 50% or fewer applications being made within the relevant statutory time limit, or such extended period as has been agreed in writing by the applicant. The statutory time limit applies once an application has been validated by the local planning authority. Where an authority is identified as underperforming under the scheme, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will actively consider calling-in for his determination oil and gas planning applications that are validated by that authority, in accordance with existing policy.

The decision on whether to call-in any application will be taken in line with current call-in policy. Any applications relating to shale gas that are called-in would be prioritised for urgent resolution.

If the Secretary of State were to grant a planning permission in respect of a called-in application, then any details of the scheme that are the subject of planning conditions would need to be submitted to and approved by the relevant local planning authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which local authorities in England have taken part in the Weekly Collection Support Scheme; how many authorities took part in the expression of interest process; which have subsequently received financial support, and how much; and of those, which have reinstated weekly collections of general (“grey” or “residual”) waste, which have used the support to collect food waste separately, and which have used it in other ways.

Lord Ahmed

In March 2012, my Department received initial expressions of interest from 151 lead local authorities, which resulted in bids from 113 local authorities. Some local authorities submitted multiple expressions of interest which were consolidated before final bid stage. The final bids were then assessed in line with the published criteria, and recipients then awarded funding.

A detailed table listing the schemes that are being supported is attached and on my Department’s website.

It may be helpful to the noble Lord to outline what this Government has delivered since 2010:

• Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice; the answer of 14 May 2014, Official Report, House of Commons 646W, outlined how 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish.

• Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling. This best practice was directly informed by the Weekly Collections Support Scheme;

• Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement); the winning bids for a further Recycling Rewards Scheme for 2015-16 will be announced shortly;

• Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (“Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge and Waste Management Quick Guide”);

• Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;

• Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;

• Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;

• Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;

• Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging’ on households bins;

• Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network’ which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;

• Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;

• Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from bin inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;

• Changed building regulations and planning guidance to tackle ‘bin blight’, and worked with the NHBC Foundation to produce new best practice guidance for house builders;

• Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.

Without our active support, Ministers are clear that weekly collections would have disappeared across England. This Government’s approach can be contrasted with the devolved Labour-led Administration in Wales, where fortnightly bin collections are official policy, and pilots of monthly bin collections are being actively encouraged.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many patients presented themselves to the Accident and Emergency and Urgent Care Units at the Royal Blackburn Hospital and Burnley General Hospital respectively in each month in the last two years; and in each month how many of those patients were admitted for treatment.

Earl Howe

Information is not available in the format requested.

Information showing quarterly accident and emergency activity and admissions at the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust between Q4 2010-11 and Q4 2014-15, is shown in the attached tables.