|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many developments in Greater London have been built with onsite renewable energy as a result of the Merton planning rule; and what the average change has been in the level of carbon dioxide emissions attributable to such a development. 
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what representations she has received from the Greater London Assembly on the future of the Merton planning rule; and if she will make a statement. 
Yvette Cooper: The Greater London Assembly responded to the draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change that was published for consultation in December 2006. Their response welcomed the proposal that local planning authorities should ensure that a significant proportion of the energy supply of substantial new development is gained on-site and renewably and/or from a decentralised, renewable or low-carbon, energy supply.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on what date the London Borough of Merton adopted its planning rule requiring onsite renewable energy; and how many appeals there have been by developers against decisions under that rule since its adoption. 
all new non residential developments above a threshold of l,000 sq m will be expected to incorporate renewable energy production equipment to provide at least 10 per cent. of predicted energy requirements
was adopted by the London borough of Merton in October 2003 in its Unitary Development Plan. Since the Plan was adopted three appeals relating to major developments have been received by the Planning Inspectorate following refusals by the London borough of Merton. According to our records none of these appeals were against decisions under the on-site renewables policy.
John Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate she has made of the number of rough sleepers in (a) Leeds and (b) West Yorkshire on the most recent date for which figures are available. 
Mr. Iain Wright: Estimates of the number of people sleeping rough were submitted by local authorities in their 2007 Housing Strategy and Statistical Appendix returns. These returns were based on the results of recent local authority street counts (or estimates in areas which have not conducted a recent street count) and recorded one rough sleeper in Leeds and four in the West Yorkshire region as a whole.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what response she has made to the recommendation made by the Williams Commission in its report, Quality First: The Commission on Design of Affordable Housing in the Thames Gateway, that the Planning Inspectorate should send a stronger message to developers and local authorities that low quality in the design of housing schemes is a legitimate basis upon which planning applications should be refused. 
Mr. Iain Wright: The independent report by the Williams Commission was commissioned by the Housing Corporation and as such the Government do not intend to make a formal response. However, the report makes a very valuable contribution to the debate on urban design and affordable housing and the Department has considered the recommendations aimed at central Government carefully.
The planning system already allows for planning applications to be turned down on design grounds. Planning inspectors take decisions on planning appeals in accordance with design policies in the development plan and published Government policy. The Department supports the work that the Planning Inspectorate (with help from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) are already doing to promote good design and ensuring their inspectors are fully trained on design issues. This is supported by guidance including By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System.
The Government have set out their design policy in planning policy statement 3: Housing (November 2006). The Housing Green Paper (July 2007) set out the next steps: that we will work on design quality metrics to ensure that we have sufficiently robust and flexible measurement systems for design quality, to ensure that local authorities are able to monitor progress in achieving higher quality, and to continue to raise the design skills levels of key professionals.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much funding was allocated from her Departments budget for the (a) Pathways to Work and (b) Train to Gain programmes in 2006-07. 
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from (a) NHS staff and (b) other interested parties on (i) NHS continuing care and (ii) NHS-funded nursing care relating to the changes to long-term care funding introduced on 1 October. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Department received 499 responses to the consultation on continuing healthcare and NHS-funded nursing care. The list of respondents was included in the response to consultation, which was published on 26 June 2007. A copy has been placed in the Library.
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities only fund social care at a critical level of need; and how many sufferers from (a) multiple sclerosis, (b) epilepsy and (c) Alzheimer's had requests for care funding turned down between (i) 2005 and 2007 and (ii) 2001 and 2005. 
Mr. Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his Departments (a) executive agencies, (b) executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), (c) advisory NDPBs, (d) tribunal NDPBs, (e) trading funds and (f) public corporations in each financial year since 2005-06. 
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will break down by subheading the £8.2 billion efficiency savings identified in the Comprehensive Spending Review for his Department; how each saving will be delivered; and how much money will be released by each. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department will publish a value for money delivery agreement in December. This will set out the approach to delivering and monitoring value for money gains in the national health service for 2008-09 to 2010-11. The NHS Operating Framework will also support delivery of value for money in the NHS.
The Government are committed to creating a more locally led, innovative health service, that puts the needs and wishes of patients, staff and the public at the heart of care. Given this increased local emphasis, it is right that the Department supports the NHS locally in determining the most suitable value for money opportunities for local health communities, without imposing solutions from the centre. The delivery agreement will therefore set out both the value for money opportunities which the Department can deliver on behalf of the NHS and the Departments role in supporting the NHS to deliver value for money locally, without setting a prescriptive breakdown of individual value for money activities.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which areas funding in his Departments budget has been ring-fenced; and what the (a) amount ring-fenced and (b) purpose of the ring-fence was in each case. 
AIDS Support £16.5 million: The Public Health White Paper Choosing Health highlighted sexual health as a priority area for action, and the ring-fencing encourages spending in accordance with that priority.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)£90.5 million: The purpose of the CAMHS Grant is to enable local authorities, in consultation with local health organisations, to deliver a comprehensive CAMHS in line with the Departments National Service Framework for Children and the cross-Government Every Child Matters programme. The ring-fencing is designed to ensure that the money is spent on improving CAMHS, as provision is geographically variable and improvements have been made from a low baseline.
Individual Budget Pilots£6 million: The grant is paid to 13 councils to support their work to pilot the individual budget programme. Ring-fenced in view of this pilot status to ensure that spending on the area occurs to inform the outcomes.
Partnerships for Older People Pilots£40 million: enables councils to establish joint pilot projects with their health and other partners to deliver and evaluate approaches which will create a sustainable shift in resources and culture away from crisis-based institutionalised care towards preventative care for older people within their own homes and communities: ring-fenced given its pilot status.
Mr. Bradshaw: Primary care trusts (PCTs) are allocated resources to commission health services at a local level for their population, and are responsible for taking into account the needs, experiences and expectations of their local population. Together with local authorities (LAs), PCTs are therefore responsible for ensuring that priorities, including public service agreements, are delivered in a way that ensures equity of service provision, including taking into account rural issues, when commissioning services for their area.
To support this, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill will introduce a new requirement for PCTs and upper tier LAs to produce a joint strategic needs assessment (JSNA) of the health and well-being needs of their local community. This assessment will be the means by which they will describe the future health, care and well-being needs of local populations. It is expected that the joint strategic
needs assessment will be carried out jointly by the Director of Public Health, the Director of Adult Social Services and the Director of Children's Services. The duty on LAs and PCTs to prepare a JSNA will commence on 1 April 2008.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the projected cost of running and administering the East of England Strategic Health Authority was in each year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The East of England Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has received a resource allocation of £9.8 million in 2007-08. It is for the SHA to determine how to spend its resource allocation.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 5 July 2007, Official Report, column 1183W, on general practitioners: conditions of employment, what his Departments (a) highest and (b) lowest estimate was of the effect the new contract for general practitioners would have on (i) average salaries for general practitioners and (ii) annual additional costs to the public purse as part of the discussions prior to the 2002 Budget. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The majority of general practitioners are independent contractors and do not receive salaries as such. Instead, they take a share of the net profit their practice makes in a year, after taking into account all earnings and expenses of the practice. The new contract determines a significant proportion of the earnings a practice receives. In agreeing the new contract, the Government guaranteed to increase investment in primary medical care services by 36 per cent. or £1.8 billion, in England, over three years ending 2005-06.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the level of funding required to introduce 100 new GP practices into the 25 per cent. of primary care trusts with the poorest provision, as stated on page 25 of his Department's NHS Next Stage Review: Interim Report, published 4October; 
(2) what estimate he has made of funding required to establish the 150 new GP-led health centres referred to on page 25 of his Department's NHS Next Stage Review: Interim Report, published on 4 October 2007; when he intends to introduce the centres; and if he will make a statement. 
On 10 October, the Secretary of State announced a £250 million access fund to deliver 100 new GP practices in the 25 per cent. of primary care trusts with poorest provision and 150 new GP-led health centres. The Department is now working with the national health service to establish timescales for delivery and to determine the specific funding
requirements which will be based on local primary care trust plans. Our detailed assumptions at this stage are commercially sensitive.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department provides to commissioners of healthcare services for assessing the predicted health needs of the populations they serve. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Assessing need is fundamental to improving the health and wellbeing outcomes of local populations. The Department is committed to ensuring that local services reflect the needs of their populations, leading to communities that are healthier, with services delivered in settings that are most convenient to the people that use them.
To help commissioners understand the needs of their populations, the Department has provided the patients at risk of re-hospitalisation tool which systematically predicts people at risk of repeated emergency admission to hospital and the combined predictive model which stratifies risk across the whole population.
The Department is also working with the NHS to set out a vision for world class commissioning, and the organisational competencies that will be needed to achieve this vision. These competencies will address the importance of understanding and predicting the health needs of the local population, and the techniques that will achieve this.
The Department is planning to publish the vision and competencies in early December. This will be followed early next year by a support and development framework to help primary care trusts achieve the vision for world class commissioning.
The forthcoming duty of joint strategic needs assessment, which should come into effect April 2008, will ensure that the needs of local people are comprehensively and systematically assessed. The Commissioning Framework for Health and Wellbeing, which was out for consultation earlier this year, has already gone a long way towards describing what questions commissioners should ask to understand the needs of the communities they serve. Forthcoming guidance on joint strategic needs assessment from the Department will clarify the approach commissioners can take.
Ann Keen [holding answer 23 October 2007]: The precise arrangements for the delivery of the deep-clean programme will be determined locally since individual trusts are best placed to know what is required and the best way of achieving it. There are therefore no plans to issue any guidelines centrally. Whether local guidelines will be issued by individual strategic health authorities (SHA), who will be allocating funding, is a matter for the SHA to decide.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|