| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am surprised that the noble Baroness should say that the Government have delivered little. I invite the Committee to consider the huge increase in capacity and in the number of medical training places; the 30,000 extra nurses working in the health service; the development of services such as NHS Direct; and the development of a new safety and quality culture. Much has been achieved and we are indebted to NHS staff for their hard work.
I share the noble Baroness's desire to see waiting time targets achieved and we are determined that they will be. That is best done by the setting of targets and effective performance management rather than by laying down limits and targets in statute law. In the NHS those matters have always been the responsibility of Ministers to determine and that will continue—which is why the NHS Plan clearly sets out the maximum waiting time targets that we expect to be delivered.
By the end of March this year, the maximum waiting time for a first outpatient appointment will reduce from more than six months to an absolute of six months. The maximum wait for inpatient treatment will be cut from 18 months to 15 months. Maximum waiting times will continue to fall on a staged basis each year. By 2003, the maximum wait for a first outpatient appointment will be five months; by 2004, four months; and by 2005, three months.
Similarly, for inpatient treatment the maximum wait will be 12 months by 2003, nine months by 2004, and six months by 2005.
Subject to other NHS Plan targets for increasing capacity, the Government's eventual aim is to reduce the maximum waiting time for all stages of treatment to three months by 2008.
The latest figures for the end of January show that many trusts are on the way to meeting the initial targets that we set. We will continue to press the health service to do everything it can to increase its capacity and to get more doctors, more beds into use and more facilities, with increasing use of the independent sector where it can provide greater capacity. All those efforts are being made by the health service to deliver on the waiting time targets.
The question arises of whether it is appropriate to put a compensation scheme for patients on the face on the Bill. I do not believe that that is the appropriate way forward. It would be wholly a departure in the enactment of health service legislation. I note that when the Conservative Party developed the Patient's Charter, it never proposed that failure to meet Patient's Charter targets should be placed in a statutory framework. If it had, it would have cost an awful lot of money.
Meeting targets is best left to the performance management system of the health service. I am confident that the NHS will deliver on those targets. We as a Government will ensure that the NHS has the resources in terms of training places, money and facilities. I hope that on consideration the noble Baroness will agree that her amendment is not appropriate.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. He began by parading some successes of the NHS, as I would have expected. But the plain fact is that non-elective activity reduced last year and the number waiting more than 13 weeks rose by 27 per cent in the first nine months of this financial year. Things are not all moving in the direction of success.
The Minister again says that the amendment is not appropriate. We are told to leave things to performance management, but I put it to the Minister that that is an internal perspective, whereas the amendment would put patients at the centre by firmly rooting a duty to deliver things for them, not considering internal management processes. I feel, as I did about the previous amendment, that the Government have a lot of rhetoric about wanting to meet targets. They have a whole structure based on the plan and its implementation. But when we ask them to put a little more commitment behind that in the form of a statutory commitment, we are told that that is inappropriate.
I am disappointed. I shall reflect further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 104 not moved.]
Lord Filkin: Now may be a convenient moment to end our consideration of the Bill in Committee today. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
- House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Employment Bill
Thursday, 21st March 2002.
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee to speak standing and that there are no Divisions in Grand Committee. If there is a Division on the Floor of the House, we shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Rotherwick: Today the Government are to make a Statement in the House on hunting with dogs. It is the result of the debate on Tuesday in your Lordships' House on hunting, which culminated in more than 400 Peers voting. The large number of Peers voting indicates the importance of the debate.
It would seem important that all noble Lords should have an opportunity of listening to this significant Statement, which has so much bearing on this nation and those who work in the countryside. It would be crass, in my opinion, to refuse to adjourn the Grand Committee in the light of the importance of this Statement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Although normally I would be happy to agree with a requirement to adjourn by Members of the Committee on the other side, I cannot agree that the Committee should be adjourned for a Statement on the Floor of the House on hunting.
The Employment Bill is a measure of considerable concern to many thousands of workers. My noble friends and I have spent a good deal of time upon it and my noble friend Lord Wedderburn in particular has worked very hard on it.
I therefore could not support the request for an adjournment. We need all the time available to discuss the Bill. I believe that that is also the position of my noble friends.
Lord McCarthy: That is certainly my position.
Lord Sharman: I rise to support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. It seems to me that the issue does not relate to the importance of the Bill: we all agree that it is a very important Bill.
On Tuesday, more than 400 Peers voted on the subject to which the Statement relates. The amount of media coverage further confirms it as an important matter. I would like the opportunity to listen to that Statement. We have already had four days in
Committee on the Bill and are scheduled to have more days next week. It is not a case of giving the Bill less time.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I take on board what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. However, we were initially given three days in Grand Committee. We were then given an extra day and we are now being given two more. Our debate is not being guillotined in any way. In any event, I very much doubt that the two additional days we have been given next week will complete the Bill. We probably would have to have some more time after Easter.
The idea that we are suggesting that we shorten debate on the Bill in order to hear something else is not correct. But that is all. As far as I am concerned, my noble friends Lord Rotherwick and Lady O'Caithan will go downstairs to listen to the Statement. I shall be sad not to, but that is a fact of life if noble Lords opposite feel unable to agree.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): We on this side regard it as a matter of principle that one should always try to accommodate people in these circumstances. However, I believe that establishing a precedent that Grand Committees are brought to a halt if Members consider that Statements or other business taking place in Parliament is of more interest to them would be a very unfortunate one to set. Therefore, we on this side would want to oppose the application.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I understand exactly what the Minister is saying. It is not a question of establishing a precedent. The fact remains that when a Statement is made in the Chamber, the current business is suspended to allow it to be made. I understand exactly that that occurs because no other space is available, but that is the precedent: when there is a Statement, the current business is suspended so that noble Lords can hear the Statement. I believe that many Members of the Committee opposite, like many of us, did not wish to deal with the Bill in Grand Committee. We would rather have dealt with it on the Floor of the House, in which case we would have had no problem with hearing the Statement. We were pushed into that, as it were. I do not know about Members opposite, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is not looking in my direction, but I suspect that, with the amount of work that he has done, he would prefer to be discussing the Bill in the Chamber. However, we have made our point; it will be reported in Hansard. I think it is most unfortunate.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page