20 May 2004 : Column 59WS
Written Ministerial Statements
Thursday 20 May 2004
HOME DEPARTMENT
Firearms
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Following the Home Secretary's decision not to extend further the life of the Firearms Consultative Committee, we have been considering how best to establish a forum for consultation and to assist in the current review of legislation. We have decided to establish a broad-based Firearms Advisory Committee with around 21 members to be drawn in equal measure from shooting interests; law enforcement/regulation; and organisations and community groups with an interest in the social consequences of firearms use and misuse.
The committee's terms of reference will be:
To advise the Home Secretary on the law and policy on firearms, having regard to the need to maintain public safety and prevent criminal misuse and taking into account the interests of legitimate shooters and the efficient, effective administration of controls.
It will be assisted in this task by a technical sub-committee with 12 to 15 members drawn principally from representatives of law enforcement bodies and shooting organisations with knowledge and experience of firearms matters. The sub-committee's terms of reference will be:
To consider the technical and legal aspects of administering and enforcing firearms controls and to make recommendations to the Firearms Advisory Committee on these and such other matters as may be referred to them.
We will be approaching interested organisations and individuals to seek nominations to serve on one, or both, committees with a view to appointing members as soon as possible.
The committee will be asked to submit a report of its work after 12 months and copies will be placed in the Library.
WORK AND PENSIONS
Disability Discrimination Act
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I have today laid before both Houses, in draft, two codes of practice concerning the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) relating to employment and associated matters. The codes have been prepared by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) under section 53A of the DDA.
The issue of the new codes is necessitated by changes to the legislation by virtue of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Pensions) Regulations 2003, which transpose
20 May 2004 : Column 60WS
requirements of European Council Directive 2000/78/EC concerning disability discrimination, and come into force on 1 October this year.
The draft code on employment and occupation covers the provisions of the DDA (as amended) relating to disabled employees, contract workers, police officers, partners in firms, barristers and advocates and persons undertaking practical work experience. The other draft code concerns the duties, under the amended Act, of Trade Organisations and Qualifications Bodies.
The new codes will replace the existing ones issued by the Secretary of State in 1996 and 1999, which deal only with employment and trade organisations, respectively. The codes are issued by the DRC, subject to approval by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and after laying them in draft before Parliament for 40 sitting days. The codes are intended to give practical guidance to those to whom the relevant provisions of the DDA apply.
Section 53A of the DDA provides that failure to observe any provision of a code of practice does not of itself make a person liable to any proceedings, but that any provision of a code which appears to a court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings under the Act shall be taken into account in determining that question.
The draft codes have undergone public consultation, and a report of the process has been published by the DRC on its website.
The changes to the legislation from October will bring significant improvements in the rights of disabled people in employment and in vocational training. In particular, they will extend the employment provisions of the DDA to one million additional employers and seven million further jobs, including 600,000 in which disabled workers are already employed, Employers and others with new duties from 1 October have no need to be apprehensive about these new duties, as they will not be required to make unreasonable changes. The new codes of practice will help them to decide what is reasonable in particular circumstances.
The Commission will be publishing the codes in advance of the legislative changes coming into force, so that those with new duties under the DDA can consider what reasonable adjustments they may need to make.
The intended commencement date is 1 October 2004, to coincide with the date on which the changes to the legislation come into force.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Right to Buy (Homes for the Elderly)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): The Government has today issued a consultation paper seeking the views of social landlords and tenant groups on its proposals to update guidance issued in 1993 on the exception from the right to buy scheme of homes that are particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons.
From the inception of the right to buy in 1980, certain kinds of property have been excepted from the scheme. These are listed in paragraph 11 of schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985. One of these exceptions is that a
20 May 2004 : Column 61WS
landlord may deny a tenant the right to buy if his home is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features paragraph 11 also provides that a tenant denied the right to buy on these grounds may appeal to the Secretary of State. A joint Department of the Environment and Welsh Office circular, issued in 1993, provides guidance on the main points on which the Secretary of State will normally expect to be satisfied when determining such appeals.
The Government's Housing Bill proposes that such appeals by tenants living in England should, in future, be determined by a residential property tribunal rather than by the Secretary of State. This will provide administrative benefits but will make no substantive difference to landlords or to tenants who appeal under paragraph 11. Such appeals in Wales will continue to be determined by the National Assembly for Wales. The Government do not propose to change the terms of the exception in paragraph 11 in any way.
In support of this transfer of jurisdiction, the Government proposes to review and update the guidance in the 1993 circular. Clearer guidance will benefit both tenants and landlords by reducing ambiguities that have led to unnecessary work, disagreements, and disappointment. Among other things, the Government proposes that landlords should explain the effect of the paragraph 11 exclusion to their tenants, and that elderly tenants who are being rehoused should be advised if in their landlords' view the right to buy would be unlikely to apply to the properties that they are being offered.
The responses to the consultation paper will be taken into account in preparing the revised guidance. It is intended that the new circular will be issued by the end of 2004.
HEALTH
Bureaucracy
The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): On 30 October, I announced to the Health Committee that the Department would be conducting a review of its arm's length bodies (ALBs). The first stage of this has now been completed. I wanted to update the House on the decisions that I have taken and how the review will move forward to the next stage.
In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked on the importance the Government attach to improving public sector efficiency and reducing bureaucracy. In the Budget report, he set out that "the pursuit of efficiency also includes reducing bureaucracy, that both cuts headquarters' administration costs and frees up time of front line professionals to respond better to the needs of their customers". The Department's ALB review needs to be seen in this context and related to the work of Sir Peter Gershon in reviewing public sector efficiency. It is about putting the frontline first, and it is clear from the first stage of the ALB review that, although much good work continues to be done by ALBs, there is considerable scope for improving efficiency and reducing bureaucracy.
20 May 2004 : Column 62WS
The review covers bodies undertaking national functions sponsored by the Department that were in existence or in the pipeline in 2003–04. The 42 ALBs included in the review are listed below. In a full year, ALBs spend more than £2.5 billion and employ more than 22,000 staff. If left unchanged, they would employ about 10 times the number of staff of the Department itself after completion of its change programme. It is clear from the analysis we have done during the first stage of the review that:
there are overlapping and duplicated functions;
there is scope for reducing unnecessary regulatory and policy activities;
back-office functions such as human resources, finance, information technology and estates could be carried out more effectively;
a considerable number of bodies could be merged, thereby reducing overheads and integrating like functions;
some bodies could be moved to a more independent status with greater stakeholder control; and
there is scope for significant efficiency and productivity gains particularly in the area of services acquired centrally for the National Health Service .
The ALB sector has grown over several decades and, as currently constituted, does not best meet the health and social care needs of today and tomorrow. I have therefore asked my Department to take forward with the sector a reform agenda that delivers the following objectives:
maximum devolution of responsibility to front line NHS and social care;
improved efficiency across the sector with minimal bureaucratic overhead;
closer working across the boundaries between health and social care; and
minimised burden of inspection and regulation on health and social care services without reduced effectiveness.
These objectives are aimed at putting the frontline first and improving services for the public while ensuring value for public money.
In light of preliminary findings of the first stage, I have set the parameters for the next stage of this review. These are, against a baseline year of 2003–4:
a 50 per cent., reduction in the number of ALBs;
a saving in expenditure by ALBs of £0.5 billion by 2007–08; and
a reduction in posts of 25 per cent., in the same period.
Changes on this scale will enable considerable extra resources to be redeployed to the frontline. For example another £0.5 billion would provide for four new hospitals, or 20,000 more nurses, or 6,250 consultants, or 7,500 general practitioners.
I recognise that the changes in prospect will cause uncertainty and disruption but they are needed. I intend for the next stage of the review to be completed as quickly as possible, within my parameters, and taking into account the need for proper discussion with the ALBs concerned and the devolved administrations. The Department will be in touch with ALB chairs and chief executives shortly to discuss our ideas for change. We want to work with them on the detail of our proposals over the next two months. We are hoping to complete this next stage by the end of June so that decisions can be announced before the summer recess.
20 May 2004 : Column 63WS
List of ALBs considered in the reviewALBs in 2003–04
1. ¡ CHI—Commission for Health Improvement
2. CPPIH—Commission for Patient & Public Involvement in Health
3. CRHP—Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals
4. ¡ DPB—Dental Practice Board
5. DVTA—Dental Vocational Training Authority
6. FHSAA—Family Health Services Appeals Authority
7. GSCC—General Social Care Council
8. HDA—Health Development Agency
9. HFEA—Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority
10. HPA—Health Protection Agency
11. ¡ MHAC—Mental Health Act Commission
12. MHRA—Medicines & Health Care Products Regulatory Authority
13. NBA—National Blood Authority
14. NBSB—National Biological Standards Board
15. ¡ NCSC—National Care Standards Commission
16. NCAA—National Clinical Assessment Authority
17. NHS AC—NHS Appointments Commission
18. NHS CFSMS—NHS Counter Fraud & Security Management Service
21. NHS IA—NHS Information Authority
22. NHS LA—NHS Litigation Authority
25. NHS PASA—NHS Purchasing & Supplies Authority
26. NHS PA—NHS Pensions Agency
29. NICE—National Institute for Clinical Excellence
30. NPSA—National Patients Safety Agency
31. ¡ NRPB—National Radiological Protection Board
32. NTA—National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
33. OIR—Office of the Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts
20 May 2004 : Column 64WS
34. ¡ PHLS—Public Health Laboratory Service
35. PMETB—Postgraduate Medical Education & Training Board
36. PPA—Prescriptions Pricing Authority
37. ¡ ROC—Retained Organs Commission
¡ These separate organisations have now gone or are planned to go.
39. CHAI—Commission for Health Care Audit & Inspection
40. CSCI—Commission for Social Care Inspection
These are planned but not yet operational:
41. Dental Special Health Authority
42. HTA—Human Tissue Authority
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |