| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Friday, 1st March 2002.
Census Internet Site
Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the cost for the contract with QinetiQ relating to the 1901 census was in keeping with the original budget.[HL2865]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): The contract for the 1901 online census does not make any provision for the payment of fees or management charges by the PRO to QinetiQ Ltd; hence the question of cost overruns does not arise for the PRO. Instead the development and enhancement costs for the online service have been met entirely by QinetiQ. It is intended that the company will recoup these investment costs and generate income through the charges for services on the census website.
Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How much public money has been or is due to be spent on the creation of the QinetiQ internet site.[HL2867]
The Lord Chancellor: The cost to the Public Record Office since 1998 of managing the project relating to the 1901 census website under the private finance initiative has been £1.2 million. The development costs for the project have been met entirely by the PRO's contractor QinetiQ Ltd, which intends that the online service will be self-financing, and that the full development costs will be recouped through future income.
ECHR Judgments: Northern Ireland
Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What discussions the Attorney-General has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland regarding the director's policy on the giving of reasons for non-prosecutions following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Jordan v The United Kingdom.[HL3056]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): The Government are considering a package of measures which, taken together, should meet the concerns expressed by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgments in a series of cases from Northern Ireland, including that of Jordan v The United Kingdom.
In furtherance of that objective, I have had a number of discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland (the Director) regarding the giving of reasons when a decision is reached not to initiate or continue a prosecution.
We have agreed that the following statement should issue:"The policy of the Director in the matter of providing reasons for decisions not to initiate or continue prosecutions, is to refrain from giving reasons other than in the most general terms. The Director recognises that the propriety of applying the general practice must be examined and reviewed in every case where a request for the provision of detailed reasons is made. This policy is based on a series of public interest considerations. It also reflects the duties owed by the Director to a range of parties as a public authority under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The lawfulness of the policy was upheld by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Re Adams Application for Judicial Review (2001) NI 1.
The Director, in consultation with the Attorney General, has reviewed his policy in the light of the judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on the 4 May 2001 in a number of Northern Ireland cases, including the case of Jordan v The United Kingdom. Having done so, the Director recognises that there may be cases in the future, which he would expect to be exceptional in nature, where an expectation will arise that a reasonable explanation will be given for not prosecuting where death is, or may have been, occasioned by the conduct of agents of the State. Subject to compelling grounds for not giving reasons, including his duties under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Director accepts that in such cases it will be in the public interest to reassure a concerned public, including the families of victims, that the rule of law has been respected by the provision of a reasonable explanation. The Director will reach his decision as to the provision of reasons, and their extent, having weighed the applicability of public interest considerations material to the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case".
NHS: Information about Local Services
Baroness Barker asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What provision is made by the NHS Direct and Patient Advice and Liaison Services to make sure that inquirers about local services are asked whether they need help with transport to hospital or other health services and are given appropriate information.[HL2724]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Patient Advice and Liaison Services and NHS Direct provide a comprehensive and accessible information service to patients and the public. This includes information on transport to hospital and social services and details of any help and financial assistance that may be available. More detailed inquiries that cannot be readily answered because they require further research will be responded to as soon as the information is available.
NHS Hospitals: Cleanliness
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they have data showing the standards of cleanliness observed in practice in National Health Service hospitals during the past five years; and, if so, whether they will publish those data.[HL2739]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information requested is not available.
The NHS Plan, which was published in July 2000, set out a work programme for the National Health Service to improve the standards in cleanliness within hospitals and initiated an immediate nation-wide campaign to clean and smarten up the NHS. Patient Environment Action Teams (PEAT) undertook unannounced visits to assess progress. Over £60 million has been invested to make improvements to the hospital environment since the NHS Plan was launched, which will directly benefit patients and visitors. The Clean Hospitals Programme has been a clear success and has had a significant impact on standards of cleanliness, decoration and supporting services, to the extent that by October last year there were no hospitals in England where cleaning standards were found to be less than acceptable. Standards are now much more in line with patients' expectations. National results of the PEAT programme, as set out in the table, were published on 31 October 2001.
| Red (Poor) | Yellow (Acceptable) | Green (Good) | |
| Autumn 2001 | 0 | 437 | 397 |
New national standards for cleanliness in the NHS, which form part of the performance assessment framework, were issued to the NHS last year. They describe what a "clean" hospital looks like and will help all hospitals to further raise the levels of cleanliness and, importantly, they will help to ensure that the standards achieved are maintained in the future. This means that for the first time there is a definitive set of cleaning standards with which all trusts will have to comply.
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Rentokil Ltd (now Rentokil Initial Ltd) has since 1990 commissioned the Medical Toxicology Unit to check safety data sheets to improve health, safety and first aid information. In the current financial year the Medical Toxicology Unit
Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is our understanding that a CowParade is being organised for London and that some of the proceeds will go to Childline. We welcome the news that Childline and other charities will benefit from this event.
We have recently granted funding of £200,000 in 2001–02 and £100,000 in 2002–03 to Childline. This additional funding from Opportunities for Volunteering will enable Childline to expand its pool of trained volunteer telephone counsellors resulting in an improved service for children and young people seeking support. Childline is also in receipt of a £175,000 core grant for the current financial year through our Section 64 grant scheme.
Baroness Gale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr Hutton) represented the United Kingdom.
The Council reached political agreement to adopt a common position on the directive setting standards of quality and safety for blood and blood components. Although a few member states were disappointed that there were no strict requirements for donations to be voluntary and unpaid agreement was reached on an acceptable compromise form of words.
In the orientation debate on the directive on tobacco advertising and sponsoring, all the delegations which spoke stressed the need to ensure that its basis be legally sound so that it is not struck down by the European Court Judgment as the previous directive had been. The UK, along with other member states expressed support for the directive. The UK raised concerns that global sponsorship should benefit from derogation until 1 October 2006. The UK also mentioned the need to ensure that the directive was compatible with other legislation pertaining toe-commerce. There was some discussion of the scope of the directive, and Commissioner Byrne explained that it did not cover indirect advertising. Some states felt the advertising ban should not apply to local press and publications. The was no opposition to the inclusion of advertising for cigarette papers within the scope of the ban.
Member States discussed the health aspects of bio-terrorism agreed presidency conclusions on the need for a comprehensive programme of co-operation in this area; strengthening existing networks and exploring other opportunities to ensure a coherent approach in support of national plans.
Commissioner Byrne made a statement on recent developments in cross-border healthcare. Member states expressed concern over recent ECJ rulings that treaty provisions on freedom to provide services applied to health services, which had previously been thought to lie outside treaty competence. The Commission called for further discussions on the detail and will produce a discussion document for the Spanish Presidency conference in February. The UK explained that the rulings had implications for domestic legislation, to which we were responding, and that there was a need to look further at competence boundaries. Other member states were of the same opinion.
Commissioner Byrne gave an update on preparations for the next round of negotiations on the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. He indicated that the Community position on agriculture subsidies would need to be updated to take account of references to phasing out of tobacco subsidies in the communication to Gothenburg on sustainable development. The planned Commission communication on "Health and Poverty policy" will help to pave the way for financial support for implementation of the convention in developing countries.
Council adopted unanimously a recommendation on the prudent use of anti-microbial agents; and conclusions on stress and depression related problems.
The Council noted the Commission's updates on the revision of the medical devices directive 93/42/EEC and the current state of play in the process of setting up the European Food Authority.
Commissioner Byrne explained that the Scientific Committee investigating the impact of electro-magnetic fields thought there may be a link with DNA damage and multiple exposure, but there was insufficient evidence as yet. The Commission will recommend further studies to fill the knowledge gaps.
Whether the Medical Toxicology Unit (MTU) has received funding from any other agrochemical companies; how much funding is the MTU currently receiving from agrochemical companies; and for what purposes.[HL2763]
Whether they would support a venture in London designed to raise funds for Childline, similar to the CowParade events in Chicago and New York.[HL2841]
What the outcome was of the Health Council held in Brussels on 15 November; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including their voting record.[HL2964]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page