---

25 Oct 2004 : Column 1046W—continued

Safety of Medicines

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require pharmaceutical companies to publish all trials of medicines. [190281]

Ms Rosie Winterton: In a clinical research agreement concluded in 2002 through the pharmaceutical industry competitiveness task force, the pharmaceutical industry agreed in principle to make trials publicly available after medicines have been licensed. Some companies have yet to implement this voluntary approach. The Government wants to see progress in this area and is keeping the issue under review.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1047W
 

Southampton General Hospital (Accident and Emergency)

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people accessed accident and emergency services at Southampton General Hospital in each month from January to September in (a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [192552]

Ms Rosie Winterton: Information on the number of accident and emergency attendances is collected on a quarterly basis. The table shows the number of attendances for the Southampton University Hospitals National Health Service Trust from quarter 4, 2002–03 to the most recent available—quarter 1, 2004–05.
Attendances at accident and emergency departments, minor injury units and walk in centres, Southampton University hospitals NHS Trust, (RHM)

	Quarter	Total attendances
2002–03	4	21,338
2003–04	1	22,987
2003–04	2	23,890
2003–04	3	23,444
2003–04	4	21,980
2004–05	1	24,208

Source:
Department of Health dataset QMAE.



 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1048W
 

Waiting Times/Lists

Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many inpatients in Worthing had to wait more than (a) three, (b) six, (c) nine and (d) 12 months for treatment in each year since 1997; and what the percentage change was in each case; [192689]

(2) what changes there have been to NHS waiting list times for residents of Worthing in the past seven years. [192690]

Ms Rosie Winterton: The numbers of people waiting more than three, six, nine and 12 months for treatment in each year since 1997 and the comparisons for the last seven years are shown in the table.
Counts of finished admission episodes (waiting list and booked cases only) with a valid time waitedPrimary care trust (PCT) of residence—5L8 Adur, Arun and Worthing PCTNational health service hospitals, England 1997–98 to 2002–03

Waiting time grouping	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03
Up to 3 months	15,048	10,380	6,289	8,221	9,943	12,090
3 months to 6 months	3,017	2,175	2,376	2,663	2,880	3,838
6 months to 9 months	1,359	1,285	1,355	1,413	1,300	2,045
9 months to 1 year	709	943	993	1,255	968	1,263
1 year to 1 year and 6 months	1,556	2,444	1,571	1,437	1,516	1,258
1 year and 6 months to 2 years	284	357	172	187	159	64
Over 2 years	45	45	42	61	63	43
Total	22,018	17,629	12,798	15,237	16,829	20,601
Mean time waited (days)	98	144	156	143	126	117
Median time waited (days)	35	60	92	78	67	69

Comparison between 1997–98 and 2002–03

	1997–98	2002–03	Percentage change
Up to 3 months	15,048	12,090	-19.7
More than 3 months	6,970	8,511	22.1
More than 6 months	3,953	4,673	18.2
More than 9 months	2,594	2,628	1.3
More than 1 year	1,885	1,365	-27.6
Total	22,018	20,601	-6.4

Notes:
Time waited statistics from hospital episode Statistics (HES) are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the time waited as the difference between the "admission" and "decision to admit" dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.
Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).
A finished in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data year. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.
Source:
HES—Department of Health

Walk-in Centres (Buckinghamshire)

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop NHS walk-in centres in Buckinghamshire. [191051]

Ms Rosie Winterton: There are now 56 national health service walk-in centres open and another 26 in development, including one in Milton Keynes. In line with Shifting the Balance of Power, it is for primary care trusts and strategic health authorities to lead the development of further NHS Walk-in Centres.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Contact Order Applications

Keith Vaz: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what percentage of contact order applications by separated fathers were refused in the last period for which figures are available. [192633]

Mr. Lammy: In 2003, 67,184 contact orders were made and 601 applications were refused, or 0.9 per cent. of the total made. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of this percentage by gender as this information is not held centrally.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1049W
 

Departmental Consultants

Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much the Department spent on outside information technology and communication specialists, consultants and engineers in the 2003–04 financial year. [192762]

Mr. Leslie: The amount spent by my Department in these areas was £13.31 million.

Departmental Expenditure

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much was spent on information technology in his Department in 2003. [192699]

Mr. Leslie: The amount spent by my Department on information technology in 2003 was £96.96 million.

Devolved Administrations

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's role in managing and maintaining the successful operation of the relationships between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. [192657]

Mr. Leslie: My Department (DCA) is responsible for the overall UK devolution settlement and for relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. This includes responsibility for the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, the Joint Ministerial Committee and the UK side of the Secretariat for the British-Irish Council.

In addition, the DCA facilitates the operation of devolution by advising departments on dealing with the devolution-related aspects of their work, resolving difficult issues and promoting awareness of devolution generally.

Lord Falconer is also chairman of the Devolution Policy Committee of Cabinet.

European Court Rulings

Mr. Kevin McNamara: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what representations he has made to the Council of Ministers at the Council of Europe concerning the implementation of European Court rulings in relation to the bundle of Article 2 cases including McKerr, Shanaghan, Jordan, Kelly et al, McShane and Finucane; if he will place in the Library his 14 June observations concerning Memorandum CM/Inf (2004) 14 published by the Council of Ministers; and what the obstacles are to full implementation of the rulings of the court. [187541]

Mr. Paul Murphy: I have been asked to reply.

I can confirm that I have today placed a copy of the Government's response to the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Memorandum CM/Inf (2004) 14 (revised) in the Libraries of both Houses.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1050W
 

We are responding to the court's ruling in the normal way and continue to have regular dialogue with the Council of Europe's Secretariat on the Northern Ireland Article 2 cases—they met in Strasbourg on 20 September 2004. Continuing attention to these cases has been needed because of ongoing judicial developments, consequently final policy decisions remain to be taken. The Government have always taken very seriously their obligation to abide by the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in any case to which it is a party. The Government's policy remains that all European Court of Human Rights judgments will be implemented.

---