|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether his Department monitors how VALPAK uses its licence fee income from the use of the Green Dot trademark; 
Mr. Bradshaw: Currently, the Green Dot Licensing Company (a subsidiary of Valpak) is vested with the task of managing the Green Dot trademark in the UK. The Green Dot Licensing Company administers Green Dot licences in the UK on behalf of the licence-holder, Pro-Europe, and this decision was made by Pro-Europe rather than the UK Government.
Valpak, as part of the agreement with Pro-Europe, is required to manage the Green Dot registered trademark according to English trademark laws. This includes the policing of its use, granting User Agreements, ensuring the integrity of the mark is protected and that it is not used in a misleading fashion or in derogation of its meaning in any way.
Valpak operates the Green Dot Licensing Company on a non-profit making basis and charges a flat licence fee. The licence fee reflects Valpaks operating costs and these will depend on the number of Green Dot users; the more users, the lower the fee. The costs are purely operating costs which will be charged back to those companies using the Green Dot logo.
Mr. Stewart Jackson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will support the appointment of a special rapporteur with
an ongoing mandate to publish regular and public reports on the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir and Azad Kashmir; and if she will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells: The UK continues to call for an end to all external support for violence in Kashmir and an improvement in the human rights situation there. But it is not for us to intervene and prescribe a solution. That is for those parties directly involved to determine through dialogue. We hope that the dialogue process between India and Pakistan will build on progress achieved to date and, in due course, lead to the resolution of all outstanding differences between the two countries, including over Kashmir.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations she has received on the prosecution in civilian courts in India of members of the army and other security forces implicated in rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 18 June 2007, Official Report, columns 1481-82W, on Saudi Arabia: Terrorism, if she will list the Saudi Arabian based charities on the UN Consolidated List with respect to Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and other individuals, groups and entities associated with them; and if she will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells: The Consolidated List, established and maintained by the Security Councils UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1267 sanctions Committee and last updated on 8 June, currently lists two Saudi Arabian-based charities associated with Al-Qaeda. These are:
The Benevolence International Foundation listed on 21 November 2002 (updated on 24 January 2004) and which is shown to have had branches in Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia; and
the Wafa Humanitarian Organisation listed on 6 October 2001 and shown to have a presence in Saudi Arabia.
The list also designates various international branches of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. The original Foundation, based previously in Riyadh, was dissolved by the Saudi Arabian government in June 2004 and its assets taken over by the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad. The Saudi Arabian government has said that the National Commission, described as a non-governmental body, has now assumed responsibility in the Kingdom for all private overseas aid including the distribution of Saudi private charitable donations.
The United Kingdom is obliged to uphold UNSCR 1267 listings and to impose a corresponding assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo. These financial sanctions are administered by the Bank of England, acting as agents for HM Treasury.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Department has decided to refocus the work that has already been carried out on the review of the national minimum standards, and to build on this, as part of the wider reform of health and adult social care regulation, to ensure there is an effective and integrated regulatory system.
The decision to integrate the review into the regulatory reform work was based on concerns received from stakeholders about a two-stage approach to changes in the standards. It is also important to ensure that any changes in respect of adult social care will align with the new regulatory regime.
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the public purse has been arising from legal action in relation to the medical training application service, broken down by main budget heading. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: There have been no legal challenges against the medical training application service. Remedy UK Limited brought an unsuccessful legal challenge against the Department, the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board, the Conference of Postgraduate Medical Deans of the United Kingdom, the British Medical Association and the National Association of Clinical Tutors in relation to the changes made to specialty training recruitment as a result of the Douglas Review. The costs to the Department of this challenge are currently being assessed.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the rate of ageing of a population is taken into account when calculating adult social care budgets; and what proportion of (a)
over 65 and (b) over 85 years olds must be present in a population for a local authority to receive additional funding. 
Formula grant is allocated using relative needs formulae (RNF) which include a factor for the number of older people. The RNF are mathematical formulae that include information on population, social structure and other characteristics of each authority. For social care, there are separate formulae for older people (aged 65 and over) and younger adults (aged 18 to 65). The older peoples formula also includes an age top-up for those aged 90 and over (as a proportion of the older people population), which takes into account the higher needs of those of very advanced age This age top-up is calculated as part of the econometric analysis carried out in an academic research project in 2005. There is, however, no set proportion of older people which leads to additional funding.
The Government (in consultation with local government) have developed separate formulae to cover the major service areas, because there are different factors influencing each service area. The funding blocks for service areas are; childrens services, adults personal services, police, fire, highway maintenance and environmental, protective and cultural services. These formulae apply to all local authorities providing particular services.
The formula for each specific service area is built on a basic amount per client, plus additional top ups to reflect local circumstances. The top ups take account of a number of local factors that affect service costs, but the biggest factors are deprivation and area costs.
Relative needs are designed to reflect the relative needs of individual authorities in providing services. They are not intended to measure the actual amount needed by any authority to provide local services but simply to recognise the various factors which affect local authorities costs locally.
|National health service hospital and community health services: qualified midwives in the Mid-Essex hospital services NHS trust as at 30 September for each specified year|
More accurate validation processes in 2006 have resulted in the identification and removal of 9,858 duplicate non-medical staff records out of the total workforce figure of 1.3 million in 2006. Earlier years figures could not be accurately validated in this way and so will be slightly inflated. The level of inflation in earlier years' figures is estimated to be less than 1 per cent., of total across all non-medical staff groups for headcount figures (and negligible for full time equivalents). This should be taken into consideration when analysing trends over time.
The Information Centre for health and social care Non-Medical Workforce Census
|Midwifery training commission figures by region 2006-07|
|Strategic health authorities||Degree||Diploma||18 month diploma|
NMET Q4 training commission Figures
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 11 May 2006, Official Report, column 554W, on Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, what recent assessment has been made of progress of research into Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy administered by LGC Ltd; and if she will make a statement; 
Caroline Flint: The £1.6 million, four-year programme (2005-08) of research towards a phase 1 clinical trial for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) that the Department has been supporting is administered through the company LGC Ltd. Progress is assessed through quarterly reports, and site visits by LGC Ltd. The programme started in January 2005.
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Health (Lord Hunt) met with representatives from the DMD research team on 15 March. The MDEX Consortium research and clinical trial is progressing well, with the first patient due to receive the first dose of the experimental molecule within the next few months. According to the groups latest report of April 2007, ethical approval for the phase 1 clinical trial is in place and regulatory approvals are expected to be given soon. The clinical trial is predicted to take place through to the end of 2008.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|