The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ms Diana R. Johnson): An error has been identified in the answer to parliamentary question 280449 from 19 June 2009, Official Report, column 527W. The answer should have been:
|Injuries to pupils/students (1 )aged 1 to 18 years, reported to all enforcing authorities (2), 2003-04 to 2007-08 (3)|
|(1) Identified by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC2000) code 0002 'Student'.|
(2) Injuries are reported and defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995. These include injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public (including students). The information available under RIDDOR 95 includes two categories of severity for members of the public: fatal injuries and non-fatal injuries that cause a person to be taken from the site of the accident to hospital.
(3) The annual basis is the planning year 1 April to 31 March.
The original answer was incorrect because of an administrative error. Instead of information on children aged from one to 18 being reported, information on children aged one or 18 was supplied, thereby omitting information on those aged between two and 17.
The Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination (Ms Rosie Winterton): On Monday 22 March the House approved by 169 to 110 an amendment, moved by Baroness Butler-Sloss, to the motion to approve the draft Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010 ("the Norwich order") which inserted at the end of the motion
"but this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have laid before Parliament the draft order, which does not comply with the Government's published criteria with respect to affordability of the future structure, without providing more evidence on whether the course proposed is likely to achieve its declared policy objective; and calls on Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with the draft order before conducting further consultation with the residents of Norwich and Norfolk".
The amended motion approving the draft order was agreed by the House. A similarly amended motion approving the draft Exeter and Devon (Structural Changes) Order 2010 ("the Exeter order") was also agreed by the House.
The Government welcome the approval by the House of the draft orders, and note that the House disagreed by 54 to 118 in the case of the Norwich order, and by 53 to 110 in the case of the Exeter order, with amendments, moved by Lord Tope, that would have resulted in the orders not being approved. However, the Government are disappointed that the House regrets the draft orders were laid before Parliament and, in the light of the very full debate on Monday, have carefully considered the request of the House not to proceed with the draft orders before conducting further consultation with the residents of the areas involved.
The Government take very seriously the concerns and requests of the House but, for the reasons set out below, have decided that it is right now to proceed and to make the orders that the House has approved.
We remain of the view, as I set out in Monday's debate, that stakeholders and the public in the areas concerned have been consulted more than adequately.
Any case for further consultation can be justified only if some who might have expected to have been consulted have not been, or those consulted have not been given sufficient information to comment on the proposals. The Government are clear that neither of these circumstances arises.
Some 50,000 responses were received by the Government in response to our consultation period March to July 2007 on 16 unitary proposals. The Boundary Committee received a further 20,000 responses during their consideration of the issue in Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk. The Government subsequently received 2,800 representations during the six weeks ending 19 January 2010, all from a mix of local people, the councils elected to represent them, other public sector organisations, businesses and third sectors. This was in addition to numerous meetings with councils in the affected areas. Moreover, during Monday's debate we heard noble Lords relay the views of various organisations and of course of local people.
It is not the case, as Baroness Shephard of Northwold suggested, that the Government have legislated to ensure the public could not be consulted. The legislation provides for consultation with the councils affected and with such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. While the Secretary of State specifically sought views from the councils and those organisations well placed to comment on the proposals, we made clear that responses were welcome from anyone, and as I told the House, specifically asked the local councils to bring these matters to the attention of their communities.
The range of comments received demonstrates that consultees had more than sufficient information to comment fully on the proposals. Many focused their comments on the merits of the two-tier status quo arrangements, without necessarily referring to the criteria or to how particular unitary proposals matched up against those criteria. Others commented, again without necessarily referring to all or any of the criteria, about how any change to unitary structures was unnecessary as the two-tier system as modernised was delivering the same benefits as could be expected from unitary local government. Many referred to the impact of the current economic climate, some seeing this as reasons for not implementing unitary proposals, others seeing this as a reason for so doing.
Moreover, the longer-term outcomes specified by the strategic leadership and value for money services criteria are closely interconnected with questions about how the unitary structures would impact on the local economy and how the new Total Place approach could affect the delivery of local public services. Some when commenting referred to economic questions and collaborative partnership working characterised by the Total Place approach.
As I put to noble Lords during Monday's debate, it is important to remember that the essential issue is whether the cities of Exeter and Norwich should have unitary councils with all the benefits that brings. Evidence of such benefits was outlined by noble Lords during the debate.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|