Wednesday 21 July 2004

The term "double insistence" is used to describe a situation where one House insists on an amendment to which the other has disagreed, and the other House insists on its disagreement. If this point is reached, and neither House has offered alternatives, the Bill is lost. This doctrine is set out in Erskine May, 23rd edition, page 639, which, however, goes on to say "there is no binding rule of order which governs these proceedings in either House, and, if there is a desire to save the Bill, some variation in the proceedings maybe devised in order to effect this object".

In the case of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, two amendments (Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 3) were still under discussion in the final exchanges between the two Houses. In the Commons, the two amendments were treated as forming a package, and a single amendment (1C) was considered by the Commons to be an amendment in lieu of both Lords amendments. But the reason given for disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 3 made no mention of the link between Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 3. Accordingly, the Lords Clerks advised that double insistence had been reached on Amendment No. 3, and they advised the Government that it would be necessary to move a Motion to vary the normal practice of the House, and thus allow further consideration of the Bill. A Motion was agreed to on 11 May.

We have been asked to consider the lessons which can be learnt from these exchanges.

By way of background, we note that the speed and complexity of exchanges between the two Houses has increased markedly in recent years. This is due partly to political circumstances, and partly to technical advances in text handling, which have made possible extremely rapid turnaround of Bills. Increased speed inevitably carries the risk of misunderstanding or error, and reduces the time available for consideration of the possible consequences of each House's decisions.

Particularly in the Commons, the practice has developed of packaging and grouping amendments during these final stages¹ . Packaging and grouping are useful ways of signalling perceived connections between amendments. But these are techniques for organising debate within each House: neither House can be expected either to discover, or to feel bound to follow, arrangements made by the other for the consideration of amendments. Messages between the two Houses, and reasons for disagreement, are ways of communicating perceived connections between amendments, but these in turn depend upon the terms of the Motions in each House. We consider that the wording of Motions could be improved, in order to make clearer the links between the different elements of a "package" of amendments. We also think that the wording should be improved, in order to make the action of one House clearer to the other and, where necessary, to identify any package.

¹ In this note, "grouping" refers to the practice (in both Houses) whereby related amendments are debated together, but the fate of individual amendments in the group is decided separately. "Packaging" refers to the practice (currently used only in the House of Commons), in the final stages of a Bill's passage, where a number of related amendments may be grouped together for the purposes of both debate and decision. So, for example, a motion on a "package" might invite the House to agree to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to a Bill, in lieu of Lords Amendments 42 to 44 and 61.

As an example, in a case where one House insists on disagreement to more than one amendment and offers an alternative only to one, intending that single alternative to encourage the other House to reconsider all the relevant amendments, the most certain way of avoiding the need in future for a Motion disapplying the double insistence rule will be to ensure that a single Motion to disagree is laid before the House along the lines of "that this House insists on its disagreement to Amendments Nos. 1,2 and 3 but proposes the following amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 1". The other House will then be able to identify the group of amendments as a package.

We are in agreement that in such a case the resultant message to the other House would not amount to a double insistence, whether or not the House receiving it chose to "unpackage" the amendments for the purposes of debate.

From a practical point of view, we consider that the packaging of amendments has advantages, and that there could be benefits from bringing the practices of the two Houses more closely together in this respect. With this in mind, the Clerk of the Parliaments will invite the Lords Procedure Committee to consider changes to the practice of the House, to allow more flexibility in dealing with Commons amendments which have been packaged.

Although, in many cases, it is likely that the two Houses will be prepared to consider as a whole a package of amendments which has been received from the other House, there will be other cases when either House may wish to consider the elements of a package separately for political reasons. It is not the purpose of procedure to provide political solutions, but rather to facilitate the consideration of options. Each House remains the master of its own procedures, and where there is disagreement about packaging, it will be possible, as at present, for the other House to consider amendments separately to the extent desired".

Matters—Towards a Goss Departmental Strategic Framework to Promote Gender Equality for Women and Men 2005–2015 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

www.osni.gov.uk.

www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying.

• Review Team for the Management and Delivery of Defence Housing Overseas
• Ministry of Defence
• Directorate of Management and Consultancy Services
• Main Building
• Whitehall
• SW1A 2HB
• Or by e-mail to pat.rodger614@mod.uk.

I will advise Parliament of the outcome of this consultation and of any final decisions that are reached.

Official Report, cols. 30–31WS) my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that Typhoon aircraft would be based at RAF Coningsby, FAR Leeming and RAF Leuchars. I have now decided that RAF Leuchars will be the second Typhoon base after RAF Coningsby. This is in order to meet the requirement for quick reaction alert (interceptor) aircraft cover for the UK. RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars are already established as bases for this purpose, which will continue after Typhoon is introduced.

National Standards, Local Action: Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Framework 2005–06–2007–08, incorporating Standards for Better Health. This will support the National Health Service and social care in taking forward the agenda set out in the NHS Improvement Plan, setting out a framework for continuing quality improvement.

Much progress has already been made across the NHS. Waiting times are falling, mortality rates for the major diseases are down and there are more NHS staff treating NHS patients. The development of clinical governance, the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the publication of national service frameworks and the establishment of independent inspectorates for health and for social care have set a framework for safe, high-quality care. This is underpinned by the NHS Improvement Plan, which sets out a programme for further progress and clear improvements in health outcomes and patient care.

Standards for Better Health and National Standards, Local Action together set out a new approach that will deliver this agenda, with reduced national targets underpinned by robust standards to drive up quality and safety. NHS patients are entitled to care that is safe and effective and Standards for Better Health sets out the standards that all providers and commissioners of NHS care are expected to meet to deliver safe and effective care.

The standards-driven approach set out in these two documents establishes an integrated framework for performance improvement, setting the parameters for local plans and targets, independent inspection by the Healthcare Commission and CSCI and performance assessment and ratings.

Standards for Better Health is published by the Secretary of State for Health under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. Standards for Better Health follows a formal consultation on draft proposals in the spring and defines standards covering the full spectrum of healthcare from public health through to acute care, which have been developed with two principal objectives. First, they include a set of core standards which provide a common set of requirements applying across all healthcare organisations to ensure that the health services that are provided are both safe and of an acceptable quality.

Secondly, there is a set of developmental standards providing a framework for continuous improvement in the overall quality of care people receive. Setting developmental standards in this way ensures that the extra resources being directed to the NHS are used to help to raise the level of performance measurably year on year.

Standards for Better Health will apply with immediate effect to all healthcare organisations in England, including NHS foundation trusts. All those providing or commissioning NHS healthcare in England will have to take them into account when planning or commissioning healthcare services.

The Healthcare Commission will measure performance against the standards and take progress against national and local targets developed in line with National Standards, Local Action into account in its annual reviews and assessments of healthcare by (and for) each NHS body in England, including NHS foundation trusts. By delivering on targets that relate directly to healthcare standards, NHS bodies will be able to demonstrate to the commission that they are performing well against those standards.

In Standards for Better Health, for the first time the Government are setting out a comprehensive statement of the standards that NHS bodies and providers of NHS care are expected to meet. Standards for Better Health will act as a key driver for quality improvement throughout the NHS, but one aim has been to clarify and to reduce the large number of requirements and standards that have in the past been set centrally, either directly from the department itself or by its arm's length bodies. Some of the department's own standards and requirements are currently under review and the review of arm's length bodies will provide an opportunity to change some of the requirements that they currently impose.

The development of the new high-level standards represents the first step toward simplifying and rationalising the expectations on the service. Taken alongside the reduced requirements in National Standards, Local Action this will give organisations greater flexibility for local innovation, underpinned by a strong focus on safe, effective healthcare and improvements in the outcomes that matter most for patients and service users driving forward the programme set out in the NHS Improvement Plan.

Copies of National Standards, Local Action have been placed in the Library.

Driving up the energy efficiency of our buildings is critical to our success in achieving the carbon emission reduction targets in the energy White Paper and our energy efficiency action plan and will contribute to our goals for developing more sustainable communities.

Raising performance standards and introducing requirements for efficiency in the use of boilers and air conditioning systems will not only make a difference in the drive to tackle climate change, they will also help to create warmer, healthier homes and more comfortable and productive workplaces.

The proposals for building energy performance certification requirements will enable prospective purchasers and tenants to be more aware of energy performance whenever buildings are constructed, sold or rented out.

Energy used in buildings is responsible for roughly half the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. Wasting energy costs money whereas measures such as loft insulation, boiler replacements and more effective controls often pay for themselves within a few years.

One of the cornerstones of saving energy is to make building structures more airtight to minimise heating or cooling energy losses due to air leaking through gaps in the structure. This is addressed in the amendments to Part L. However, it is also essential to ensure there is sufficient controlled ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality to protect the health of the building's occupants. This is one of the roles of Part F, and is why Approved Document F has been revised in conjunction with Part L.

The guidance on ventilation systems has been expanded to cover more options, and changed from a prescriptive to a performance-based approach that should encourage innovation.

A new section in the proposed guidance deals with the design of smoking rooms in workplaces. The new edition of the approved document will also take into account the commitments made in the public health White Paper to be published later this year.

The consultation documents will be sent to several hundred organisations that have an interest in the energy efficiency of buildings and/or ventilation. Paper copies have also been placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords, and the text can be downloaded from the ODPM website.

The consultation period for both sets of proposals closes on Friday 22 October 2004. Following this my officials will work with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to consider how the proposals might need to be modified to take account of the opinions expressed in the consultations, and (for Part F) the commitments that may be made in the public health White Paper. I am aiming, however, to lay the legislation needed to implement the directive and amend the building regulations and approved documents by July next year, and to achieve our goal of bringing them into effect by the end of December 2005.

Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities (Cm 6273) is today being presented to Parliament.

Parental separation affects many children and their families. When handled well the adverse impact on their children can be minimised. When things go badly the effects can be very damaging for children, both in the short and longer terms. These risks can be reduced if parents can resolve parenting issues in an amicable fashion. Because of social changes, more children experience parental relationship breakdown than a generation ago: 150,000 to 200,000 parental couples separate each year. In addition, fathers are, in general, more actively involved in caring for and helping to raise their children.

Currently, only 10 per cent of separating couples with children have had their contact arrangements ordered by the courts, though the number of court applications for contact is rising each year, with the courts in England and Wales making 67,000 contact orders last year. The majority of applications are made by fathers, reflecting the fact that most children live with their mothers following separation.

I am clear that there is scope for considerable improvement in the way in which the family justice system, together with its associated services, deal with contact disputes. This view is widely shared among judges, legal practitioners and voluntary organisations. Some fathers' groups assert that the courts and the law are biased against them. I do not accept this view. However, what I do accept is that major changes are needed, in order to ensure that court and other interventions into family life become much more effective in helping to secure effective resolutions which are in the interests of the child. I strongly believe that in most cases it is very much in the interests of the child to have an on-going relationship with both parents. By improving the system, the Government can make their proper contribution to enabling more non-resident parents to enjoy meaningful ongoing relationships with their children.

Following the most careful consideration across government, we have determined that it would not be helpful, in any practical sense, to revise the principles that currently underpin the central piece of legislation—the Children Act 1989, in particular, the "paramountcy" principle, which makes the child's welfare the court's first consideration. This primary legislation, as interpreted and defined by the case law, already makes clear that both parents are equal and that both should continue to have a meaningful relationship with their children after parental separation, so long as it is safe. We fully accept that we need to make changes to the current system, and to support parents in settling their disputes, by providing more effective help for them to do so.

This consultation document puts forward proposals which are intended to help those undergoing parental separation to resolve their disputes more effectively so that children's needs are better met. They are based on the recognition that the primary responsibility for caring for children rests with parents rather than with the state. Their aims are three-fold. First, they aim to minimise conflict and support good outcomes, both for children and their parents, preferably without recourse to the courts. Secondly, they aim to improve parental access to those services which can enable them to reach agreements. Thirdly, they aim to improve legal processes and service delivery for those who do go to court. While most of our proposals are focused on the 10 per cent of parents who turn to the courts, a number of them are intended to be relevant to all parents who separate.

In developing these proposals, we have listened carefully to what parents and children have said. The consumer strategy work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs involved drawing together evidence from research and conducting workshops and focus groups with parents. The key message from the parents was that they wanted help and support to navigate the emotional and practical issues they faced during the breakdown of their relationship.

We have also consulted widely with the key stakeholders, including parents' groups, academics, voluntary organisations and service providers, including the judiciary, legal professionals and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). It is this approach that will ensure rapid improvements at local level. Alongside the publication of this consultation document, the president of the Family Division and the chief executives of the Court Service and of CAFCASS are today writing to all judges, court service staff and CAFCASS officers to begin the process of change.

The consultation period, which begins today, will run until 1 November 2004. Comments and discussions about the proposals will be welcome. The Government plan to implement many of these proposals quickly and robustly and to pursue the legislation that is needed as soon as possible.

2004 Spending Review: Meeting Regional Priorities is being published today and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

This document meets the Treasury's commitment to set out how the 2004 Spending Review, announced to Parliament on 12 July 2004, responds to the issues and priorities identified in the regional emphasis documents jointly prepared by the Government Office, regional development agency and regional chamber in each English region.

The document reaffirms the Government's commitment to improving regional economic performance. It summarises the next steps the Government are taking to ensure that the evidence base supports the Government's regional policy agenda, and sets out the SR04 response to input from the regions as well as plans for devolving further resources and responsibilities in every region.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/national_statistics/documentation.asp.