18 Jan 2007 : Column 771
House of Lords
Thursday, 18 January 2007.
The House met at eleven o’clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.
Disability: Manual for Streets
Lord Low of Dalston asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What account they propose to take, in the forthcoming Manual for Streets, of (a) the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association’s research on shared surfaces; and (b) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s research on home zones.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are aware of both research projects, neither of which has been completed, which are investigating “shared surface” schemes. The Manual for Streets project team took account of concerns of both organisations when formulating general guidance on shared surfaces and other design techniques for residential streets. It will emphasise the importance of ensuring that designs do not present barriers to disabled people. The manual will not advocate the widespread introduction of shared surfaces.
Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, in order to comply with the disability equality duty laid on public authorities by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 as well as their obligations under that Act in relation to highway functions, will he see to it that central and local government ensure that the design, development and monitoring of streetscape and public space schemes, including those that follow the “shared space” concept, take full account of the needs of disabled people? I notice the Minister said that central and local government will broadly take account of the needs of disabled people as far as possible, or words to that effect. I would like to hear a more fulsome assurance from him that they will take complete account of the needs of disabled people. Will he ensure that those responsible for such schemes consult with disability organisations at all stages in the process of developing our streets and public spaces?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can certainly give that last assurance. It would be a denial of the whole concept of the development of the Manual for Streets if we failed to take into account the needs of the disabled. The project is designed so that on certain streets in the centre of urban areas, predominantly, a hierarchy should be created in which pedestrians and the disabled are rated highly and that cyclists and motor traffic recognise the significant needs of those groups.
18 Jan 2007 : Column 772
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the council in Westminster, where I have a home in London, consults on any new street scheme? I am pleased to say that the street I live in has responded and is providing, in the improvements, disabled access at both ends, whereas previously access was only at one end. Will the Minister, for the benefit of those like myself—I declare an interest as I have a disabled family member—define “shared services” and “home zones”?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s assertion that a local authority is concerned to improve its street schemes for the benefits of disabled people. Shared services relate to those schemes which provide no hard delineation or segregation between services used by pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. In some of our town centres, these services are now shared without a delineated pavement, but the presumption—indeed, the injunction—is that motorised traffic is aware of the priority over it given to pedestrians and others.
Home zones are an attempt within residential areas to increase the priority of pedestrians so that we make the environment more user-friendly for them, given that in recent decades massive priority has been given to motorised traffic.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my good friend Lord Low and share his appreciation of my noble friend the Minister’s reply. Can my noble friend say what consideration has been given to ensuring that professional bodies, such as architects and planners, take fully into account the needs of blind and other disabled people in innovative approaches to the design of streets and the urban environment? And since for them neglect in this policy area piles handicap on handicap, will Ministers be encouraging the adoption of good practice based on research findings?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has a long history of concerns about these matters. A great deal of this is governed by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 where it is enjoined on those who are constructing such environments to have due regard to the needs of the disabled. One would scarcely be a professional architect dealing with designs that in any way affect the disabled without being acutely aware of the statutory obligations. However, although it is important that professionals are aware of these requirements, at the end of the day, those who commission the professional work must take responsibility. In this case, it is overwhelmingly the responsibility of local authorities.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, is there any UK-wide monitoring of different road and pavement surfaces to ensure that every local authority in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England meets its obligations in this direction?
18 Jan 2007 : Column 773
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, monitoring in the way indicated by the noble Lord would suggest a very heavy hand indeed from the department; it does not work as stringently as that. However, the department is obliged to give advice on these matters—which is where its main power is in this regard. The Manual for Streets is an advisory note to local authorities on how they should guard the needs of pedestrians, particularly the disabled, in circumstances where there is no segregation between vehicle traffic and pedestrians. However, it is advisory and local authorities take responsibility. They do receive from the department clear guidance about the best way of approaching surfaces in these terms.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given people’s clear concern that architects are properly briefed about the needs of the disabled, will the Minister reassure us that they are built into the training of architects?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the training of architects is a little beyond my department. Suffice it to say that any trained architect who was not aware of the demands of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the necessity of taking into account the needs of the disabled could not erect a building in this country and could not be involved in any public or even private space.
Health: Velcade
11.14 am
Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What are the consequences to National Health Service patients of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s decision not to approve the drug Velcade.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has not yet issued its final guidance on the use of Velcade. Appeals have been lodged against NICE’s final appraisal determination and are due to be heard on 8 February.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the press reports in relation to Mr George King, who suffers from myeloma but has been told that the next stage of his treatment will require the drug Velcade? In view of that, he has announced his intention to go to Scotland because the drug is not available in England due to the NICE decision. Does my noble friend agree that that is unacceptable and ludicrous? As Mr King has put his move on hold until his appeal has been heard, does he also join me in hoping that NICE will reverse the decision so that Mr King can stay in his home and with his family and friends?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, while of course I have every sympathy with any member of the public who suffers from this condition, it is not
18 Jan 2007 : Column 774
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that NICE is faced with an incredibly difficult and daunting task in trying to assess the clinical effectiveness of new drugs and new interventions in the NHS? Did he notice the long interview given by the chairman of NICE in a weekend newspaper? One implication of his remarks is that as more and more highly effective and very expensive drugs come on stream the time may ultimately come when the NHS will not be able to afford them. What steps are the Government taking to deal with that eventuality?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly read with a great deal of interest Sir Michael’s interview with the Times on Saturday. I think that he was joining in the usual NHS process of encouraging generous settlements on behalf of the NHS. In general I would say two things. First, the impact of NICE has speeded up the introduction of new medicines and treatments. We reckon that the cost of the technology appraisal judgments to the NHS since NICE was introduced is more than £1 billion. Secondly, the funding that we have put into the NHS indicates that the NHS is in the best position that it has been in to take advantage of these new techniques.
Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, the Minister has just said that it is up to local primary care trusts to decide whether to allow Velcade to be prescribed. Does he not think that the Secretary of State should perhaps give the same clarification to PCTs about Velcade that she gave with Herceptin—that they should not necessarily use the NICE process as an excuse not to prescribe a drug and therefore end up with people going to Scotland, or whatever?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear to primary care trusts that in advance of any NICE judgment a PCT cannot simply say that it will not fund a treatment because it is waiting for a NICE decision. In the period before a NICE decision, the local PCT has to take a number of factors into account and reach its own judgment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is not the position very difficult when PCTs have large debts? Can the Government not do something about the drugs being given nationally instead of by the PCTs? Otherwise, it is going to be postcode prescribing all the way.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that. NICE was introduced to deal with postcode prescribing. We now have much more
18 Jan 2007 : Column 775
Baroness Verma: My Lords, while not wishing to undermine or overrule NICE, perhaps I may ask what steps the Government have taken to negotiate with the makers of Velcade, Johnson & Johnson, to explore all other possible means of making this promising drug more widely available for the benefit of NHS patients; for example, through a risk-sharing scheme. The Minister must understand the seriousness of the issue—the great frustration which NICE’s decision has caused for many cancer patients and the perceived injustice of the drug being available in Scotland.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not underestimate the concern and anxiety that is caused to patients, but we have to ensure that the way the resources available to the NHS are used is clinically and cost effective. That is why we have established NICE as an independent body. That is why it would not be right for Ministers to intervene in that process.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, is the Minister concerned that the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group looked at the same data as NICE but came to a different conclusion? For the past 18 months, Velcade has been available in Wales, and patients have moved there. Does this not undermine public confidence in the way health economics data are presented and analysed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is inevitable that, if health services are the responsibility of different Administrations in the UK, different approaches will be taken. The NICE methodology has been tested considerably. Many countries look to NICE for guidance and advice based on the thorough approach that it takes. The Government are not complacent. NICE is about to undertake a further review of its approach and methodology. We will want it to take account of all factors. If there are lessons to be learnt from other countries, we should take them on board. In the years of NICE’s existence, it has shown itself to be wholly independent and rigorous.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sorry, but we are now in the 16th minute.
18 Jan 2007 : Column 776
Armed Forces: Future Aircraft Carrier
11.22 am
Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty’s Government:
When the Royal Navy future carrier demonstration phase is expected to complete, and when the main investment decision is expected to be taken.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, I have made clear to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance that time is now critical. I am looking to get a robust, affordable deal negotiated quickly to allow a main investment decision to be taken as soon as possible.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, will the Minister quash strong rumours coming out of the MoD that these continual delays in signing a full contract are just the first step towards cancelling the carriers? Despite the Prime Minister’s commitment to spend more on defence, we heard at Question Time yesterday that he is only one of a number of contributors to the debate on the Comprehensive Spending Review. As the Chancellor is no friend of the Armed Forces and we are fighting two wars on a peace-time budget, will the Minister give those serving in the Royal Navy some hope that the carriers will not be sacrificed to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord that assurance. He should consider the rumours quashed.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is now two years or more since the Royal Navy Sea Harrier force was withdrawn. The date of introduction of the new carriers looks like slipping even further to the right. Is the Minister satisfied that the Royal Navy will have air crew and engineers in sufficient numbers and of sufficient expertise to man aircraft for these new aircraft carriers?
Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords; I am happy to give the noble and gallant Lord that assurance. I do not accept that the dates for the introduction of the new aircraft carriers have moved to the right. I am happy to reiterate the central importance of the carrier strike capability—the combination of the aircraft and the ships—to the country’s future defence posture. It is set out clearly in the Strategic Defence Review and it remains the case.
Lord Garden: My Lords, can the Minister tell us roughly what proportion of the cost of the overall carrier programme he expects to be committed at the main gate? Might it be prudent—I choose my words carefully—perhaps to accept that we have had so much slippage already that he may want to wait until a new Prime Minister is in the chair?
18 Jan 2007 : Column 777
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I think I can be absolutely clear to the House on this point. As I said, the aircraft carriers are central to the defence posture. In the defence budget as a whole there is a budget for the replacement of the aircraft carriers. The key issue now is reaching agreement with industry on the price and the delivery of the carriers. As I said in my Answer, I am pushing very hard to reach an agreement that will deliver the carriers to cost and to time. For that to happen there needs to be consolidation in the industry. I am very pleased to see that that is now starting to happen. I am pleased also to see the progress we have made in the collaboration with France. We now have a common design for both the French and the British aircraft carriers which has been agreed and has involved no delay to the British aircraft carrier project, and at no increase in cost. That is an important achievement.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is no friend of the Armed Forces is entirely untrue, not least because he has a substantial constituency interest at Rosyth?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to make that point. It is clear to anyone who has listened carefully to what the Chancellor has said that he is a friend of the Armed Forces.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, without in any way wishing to suggest that the specification for the new carriers should fall short of meeting the operational requirement, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that, over the years, the biggest contributor to delay and cost overruns in major procurement projects has been the constant tweaking of the technical requirements?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Industry made clear to me last year that unless the Navy could clearly close off the specification by the end of last March, it would not be able to meet the timescales we are looking for. I was very pleased and, in fact, impressed that the Royal Navy was able to meet that target.
Lord Burnett: My Lords, DML Plymouth Appledore has an enviable record of excellence in the design, construction and refitting of warships. There has been speculation on the ownership of that company. The Government have a golden share. It is very important that that speculation is put to an end as soon as possible. Will the Minister let the House know exactly when the ownership of that vital company will be resolved?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |