| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister give some reassurance to the people of Leeds
and Hull who have had emergency cases shuffled between the two cities? Patients have died because of the lack of intensive care beds. Would it not be possible to be more flexible and open a few more intensive care beds in this problem period?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have allocated £25 million for this year, so that money is available to trusts if they wish to expand their services. But it is not just a question of opening beds; it is also a question of recruiting staff. As has been said, one of the problems has been illness among staff. However, I shall be visiting Hull next week and I shall certainly look at the situation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that we all join the Minister in congratulating those dedicated NHS staff who have struggled to keep services going this winter. However, we are entitled to ask a simple question: what has gone wrong? Does the Minister recall that in a debate on this subject she said that,
- "we have learnt the lessons of last winter. Since that time, planning for winter pressures has been a priority for the NHS"?--[Official Report, 6/11/96; col. 708.]
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that that is rather unfair. The noble Baroness will know that we have never had so many emergency admissions in one year. In fact, such admissions can double in a day and, coupled with the coincidence of the sharp winter weather and the flu epidemic, it is not surprising that the National Health Service is under pressure. As a past chairman responsible for 16 hospitals, I should say that it has forever been thus. I can remember 10 years ago when the situation was a great deal worse. We now have more patients treated. We have more staff. We are doing better and better and better, and the nation should be proud of its National Health Service.
Waste Management: Certificates
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the deadline of 10th August 1999 for waste facility managers to obtain their certificates of technical competence still holds; and whether they are satisfied that the waste industry is taking steps to ensure that all managers are qualified by that date.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the deadline of 10th August 1999, by which waste management facility managers should obtain their certificates of
technical competence, still applies--other than for two exceptions. One is for those who are covered by the Waste Management Regulations 1996 and Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations which grant an exemption until 1st October 2001. The other is for those who are covered by the Special Waste Regulations 1996, which allow some exemptions until 10th August 2000. We are confident that all managers can be qualified by the relevant dates and we are encouraging the waste industry to take the necessary steps.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that it is important that those managers who have worked so hard and made such an effort to obtain their certificates well in advance of the date and who have achieved the necessary standard should not have the goal-posts moved at any time so that those who have not done the work find it easier to obtain the certificates? Can he tell the House the Government's proposals for enforcing the regulations as regards technical competence certificates and say what will be the consequences for those companies which do not achieve the result which has been asked of them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is very important that those people who have applied to obtain the certificates should be able to do so. It is our intention to ensure that as many people as possible are able to do that. The noble Baroness said that she does not wish to see the goal-posts moved. I can understand that. There is likely to be a slight change because there are at present nine certificates of competence and it is expected that that will increase to 11.
If a site is being run by a person without a certificate of competence, that will be a matter for the Environment Agency which will be able to revoke the licence for the site.
Baroness David: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the requirements of the vocational qualification are adequate and appropriate for practical managers? Who was responsible for devising this qualification and who was consulted about the requirements?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the requirements are both adequate and sufficient. The noble Baroness asked me who is responsible for that. It is that remarkable body called WAMITAB. Your Lordships may not know what that stands for. It stands for the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board. That board has consulted with its organisations and the Government. It is producing new proposals which will be considered by the Government and, if necessary, regulations will be introduced which will be laid before Parliament.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the Minister said that the number of certificates will increase from nine to 11. I hope that that does not mean that there will be a watering down of the standards. It is very important that the goal-posts are not moved in
relation to the standards required of waste managers. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister on that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no; the standards will not be altered at all. It will merely be easier for people to obtain a certificate in the particular discipline in which they wish to have one. The standards will remain just as high.
Police Bill [H.L.]: Procedure
3.6 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I wish to ask the Leader of the House for a Business Statement about yesterday's proceedings on the Police Bill and the Government's intentions for the next stage of the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the Leader and the House if I explain very briefly why I make that request.
I understand that discussions took place this morning and have been widely reported between the Home Secretary and Mr. Jack Straw for the Opposition about the future of the Bill. Although I fully understand that they were conducted properly, it would be extremely helpful if the noble Viscount would give some account to this House of the nature and outcome of those discussions. It would also be helpful if he could give an undertaking that at the various stages of any further discussions, your Lordships will be informed about progress and will not have to rely upon press releases or, for that matter, statements in another place to know how the matter is to be resolved.
I ask that because the two amendments which were carried yesterday in your Lordships' House were of deep concern to Members on all sides. It would be discourteous--not of the Leader himself who is never that--if your Lordships were not kept fully informed of all developments. They should not simply learn of them after the event.
I believe that the assumption is widely held that, in the first instance, the Home Secretary will make a decision on the question in principle. Although clearly the Leader of the House will not say so, it is inconceivable that the Government will attempt to overturn those very decisive votes of your Lordships yesterday. Therefore, first, I should expect a statement of principle.
After that, no doubt the Home Secretary will come forward with his own proposals. I make it clear that any discussion of the proposals should not be on a bilateral basis between the Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition or his deputy nominee in another place. Instead, it should in some way involve all those who are extremely concerned about the issue and want to see a successful outcome and an amendment to the Bill which will ensure that the judicial authorisation would be credible in all aspects.
I am sure that your Lordships recognise, as we do on these Benches, that the two amendments carried were in some ways mutually incompatible. Yet, at the same time, the will of your Lordships' House must be reflected in the future of the Bill.
The second point on which I hope the noble Viscount will be able to help us is as regards the future progress of the Bill. As your Lordships will know, the House sat until 25 minutes before 2 a.m. in discussions on the Report stage. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was not present, but I do not hold that against him. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was present, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, so they were a good team. But we sat very late indeed. I put it to the Leader of the House that it is not in the spirit of the Jellicoe Report that we should have continued in that way with what, by all accounts and in the view of the Government, are very important measures.
Part V of the Bill, which is of great concern to your Lordships and indeed to many people outside, was reached at a quarter-to 12 at night. I would respectfully ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to reflect on whether that is the way in which we should be conducting our business when our task is that of scrutiny.
We are due to reach the Third Reading of the Bill next week. I ask the noble Viscount whether it might be wiser to postpone the Third Reading until some of these matters have been resolved. As his noble friend Lady Blatch will say, some of the difficulties and some of the delays which occurred yesterday were in fact due to the amendments which had been carried earlier in the day. Would it not be better to settle that issue once and for all, before we attempt to deal with the rest of the Bill?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page