Thursday 9 December 2004

Voting for change: An electoral law modernisation programme, the Electoral Commission has made proposals and recommendations for electoral reform to address the needs of the voter and make elections more accessible; to protect the integrity of the democratic process; and to modernise electoral registers. The commission advocates the modernisation of registers, which would involve the introduction of individual registration, a building block on which safe and secure arrangements for voting away from polling stations could be delivered.

Our response welcomes many of the Electoral Commission's recommendations and sets out our priorities for change. They are focused on three key outcomes: engaging more people in the political process; building public confidence in the electoral system; and delivering electoral services in a way that is more efficient and more responsive to the needs of the voter.

We are committed to maintaining the security and integrity of the electoral process and to enhancing its openness and transparency. We will ensure that any innovative methods of voting that are introduced will be as secure—if not more secure—than the traditional methods. Specifically, we propose, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce measures to make ballot papers more secure; to establish new offences around electoral fraud and personation; to provide for clear English guidance to accompany postal ballot papers and for guidance to key statutory forms to be available in different languages and alternative formats for those who need them; and to give greater access to observers at polling stations and at other stages of the electoral process, such as the count.

We are sympathetic to the principles of individual registration and appreciate the benefits that it might bring, but we are concerned about maintaining a simple and clear system and comprehensive registers. We are therefore considering the options to support voting away from polling stations with an approach that preserves the completeness and integrity of electoral registers.

We hope that the publication of this response will substantially move forward the modernisation agenda for elections. Copies of this government response to the Electoral Commission's report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence informed the House in his Statement on 21 July ( Official Report, Commons, 21/7/04; col. 348.) that changes in the force structure of the RAF and the achievement of planned organisational efficiencies would lead to a reduced RAF trained manpower requirement of around 41,000 by 2008. I can now inform the House that the RAF has completed initial work on how that reduction will be achieved, while maintaining a satisfactory balance of personnel with the skills and experience levels throughout the service to enable the delivery of operational capability in a more flexible, deployable and responsive way.

The RAF will achieve the required reduction from a current regular trained strength of around 48,900 through a balanced strategy of normal outflow, reduced recruitment and a targeted redundancy programme. The service is therefore reducing its recruitment targets by some 4,000—to around 6,000 in total—over the next three financial years and has identified a need for some 2,750 redundancies over the same period. Redundancy will be effected by a compulsory scheme, for which applications will be invited. It is hoped that as many of the redundancies as possible will be applicants but, in order to ensure the long-term balance of ability and experience across the RAF, it may not be possible to accept all applications received, in which case it may be necessary to select some non-applicants.

Applications for the first 450 redundancies are being invited today and those selected will leave the service by 31 March 2006. Details of the remaining redundancies—approximately 2,300—which are expected to be managed in two further phases, will be notified to RAF personnel when further work is complete.

Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. The importance of this was recognised in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised) Telecommunications (PPG8) and the code of practice and has recently been emphasised by the All-Party Group on Mobile Communications in its report into planning procedures. The report recognised the benefits of local planning authorities and operators working with the local community to review annual roll-out plans and to develop local strategies for telecommunication developments.

The Government believe that information sharing and negotiation at this early stage could greatly reduce concern and conflict when specific applications are submitted in line with the agreed local plan or strategy. Therefore, it is desirable that, in their local development frameworks, local planning authorities consider how to manage the developments needed to meet the growing demand for communication services. Where appropriate, authorities may need to consider developing a suitable policy basis for communication developments in their local development documents. Such policies must of course be in accordance with the national policy as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised) Telecommunications.

I am also reiterating the importance of effective pre-application discussions, especially in the absence of an agreed communications plan or strategy. It is of course open to local planning authorities to charge for such discussions under Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003, if they consider it necessary or appropriate.

The code of best practice sets out the traffic light model, which is designed to help network operators and their representatives to identify issues that might arise should a site be selected for a telecommunication development and to help the preparation of consultation strategies to address such issues. It is important that the rating under the traffic light model is discussed with the local planning authority. In red and amber rated areas, the discussion should include consideration of the optional elements of the consultation strategy that will be undertaken by the applicant. In accordance with the code of best practice, it is reasonable for the local planning authority to expect that evidence of the consultation undertaken should be provided as part of the supplementary information sent with an application.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned a study by the University of Reading and Arup to assess the impact that the code of best practice has had since its introduction and how local authorities have implemented the code and how the public perceives its operation. The mobile network operators have also commissioned the second independent review of their "Ten Commitments", which will demonstrate in a quantitative way how their operations and procedures align with the requirements of the code. That will provide the Government with evidence on whether the code has been effective and whether there are any areas of weakness that need to be addressed. Informed by that evidence, the Government will consider whether changes to the code are appropriate.

Finally, in respect of the Court of Appeal case, First Secretary of State v T Mobile and others, on 12 November the court dismissed an appeal by the First Secretary of State against the decision of Sir Richard Tucker in relation to an application by T Mobile for a shared mast in Harrogate. In essence, the issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the judge in the High Court had dealt correctly with the extent to which public fears about the health risks arising from masts was material, when the development in question had the benefit of an ICNIRP certificate. Sir Richard had held that the inspector had misconstrued PPG8 when dealing with the issue in his decision letter.

The Court of Appeal gave consideration to the policy guidance in PPG8. Taking into account that advice, the court found the First Secretary of State's policy to mean that in cases where an ICNIRP certificate existed, only in exceptional circumstances would it be legitimate for a local planning authority to take public fears about health risks into account. It agreed with Sir Richard that the inspector had misconstrued that advice and that his decision was therefore flawed. We will carefully review the transcript of the judgment of Lord Justices Pill, Mummery and Laws before deciding what action may need to be taken in the light of that judgment.

Officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will write to all local planning authorities and licensed communications code system operators drawing their attention to this Statement.

Delivering Democracy?

In its report, the commission set out its evaluation of the electoral pilots in June 2004. It found that the elections were successfully delivered; there was no evidence that all-postal voting led to an increase in fraud; and a majority of more than 2:1 were either very or fairly satisfied with the all-postal voting arrangement in their pilot area.

The commission also found that voters wanted to have choice about the way in which they vote. That is consistent with the Government's long-term goal of multi-channel elections, including voters having the options of electronic, postal voting and voting in person.

We are not, however, persuaded by the commission's arguments that all-postal voting should not be pursued at UK elections. They are not supported by the outcome of the June elections, where turnout was substantially higher in the pilot regions and a large majority found the all-postal method acceptable. Furthermore, the turnout achieved in the north-east regional referendum underlined the value of all-postal voting in increasing participation.

In its report, the commission proposes the development of a new model of voting. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to that work and will have regard to the progress of the work when assessing any new proposals for all-postal voting.

The Electoral Commission also indicated that it would not support pilots in May 2005—or any at all until the new model was in use. We have decided not to issue a prospectus inviting applications for pilots in the county council elections in May 2005. It remains, however, open any time, to local authorities to apply to run all-postal pilots. The Government remain committed to a programme of electoral pilots in 2006 and subsequent years, including e-voting pilots.

We hope that the publication of this response will substantially move forward the modernisation agenda for elections.

Copies of this government response to the Electoral Commission's report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Safeguarding Patients: Lessons from the Past—Proposals for the Future, Cm 6394, was published today, together with the Government's response to the inquiry's fourth report, The Regulation of Controlled Drugs in the Community, Cm 6249. This follows the publication of reports on the extent of Harold Shipman's criminal activities; on the 1998 investigation by the Greater Manchester Police; and on death certification and the coroner system. The inquiry is now working on a supplementary report to the first of those reports and hopes to publish this final element of its work early in the new year.

The Government express their profound thanks to Dame Janet Smith and her team for the care and attention that has gone into the preparation of each of her reports. We also reiterate our sympathy to the relatives and friends of Shipman's victims and express our thanks to them for their valuable contribution to the inquiry's work.

The inquiry's fourth report, published on 14 July 2004, analyses the means by which Harold Shipman was able to obtain his lethal armoury of controlled drugs and finds weaknesses in current systems of control and in the ways in which those controls were operated. The report recommends strengthening current arrangements in four main areas: first, a new integrated, multi-professional inspectorate to inspect the management of controlled drugs in National Health Service primary care to replace the existing unco-ordinated arrangements for inspection; secondly, restrictions on the right of general practitioners to prescribe controlled drugs in certain circumstances, for example prescribing for oneself or one's immediate family or prescribing beyond the requirements of one's normal clinical practice; thirdly, auditing the prescribing of controlled drugs in primary care and the movement of supplies of controlled drugs in the community; and fourthly, better information to patients on the special legal status of the controlled drugs that are prescribed for them.

The Government fully accept the need to improve arrangements for the management of controlled drugs and to do so in a way that does not hinder patients from accessing the treatment that they need. We fully accept the great majority of the inquiry's recommendations, and for the remainder we propose to achieve the same recommended ends by alternative action. Dame Janet Smith has seen our proposals and is pleased that we have accepted the principles underlying her report and that we intend to follow up her recommendations with rigorous action.

We will also follow through the implications of the inquiry's recommendations for other healthcare settings, including hospital care, the private sector, and care homes. Our proposals are set out in Safer management of controlled drugs—the Government's response to the fourth report of the Shipman Inquiry, Cm 6434, which is published today.

We will make it clear that responsibility for the proper management of controlled drugs is an integral part of the clinical governance responsibility of all NHS and private sector healthcare organisations. We will develop improved arrangements for the inspection of controlled drugs that strengthen rather than detract from that proper local responsibility.

We will ensure that the prescribing of controlled drugs, which in future will include prescribing by healthcare professionals other than doctors and dentists, takes place in the context of a general framework of good prescribing practice backed by clinical governance frameworks and appropriate professional regulatory sanctions.

We will also capture information on all prescribing and requisitioning of controlled drugs, including private prescribing, and provide analyses of prescribing patterns by prescriber and by patient for those operating the local controls. Information systems will be set up that will enable a full audit trail for the movement of controlled drugs into the community.

We will also ensure that patients receive appropriate information about controlled drugs in the context of an informed discussion with the health professionals involved in their care and against a background of information about the safe handling of prescription medicines more generally.

Finally, we will support all those actions through improved education and continuous professional development for healthcare professionals dealing with controlled drugs.

In her fifth report, Dame Janet makes recommendations in the following areas: handling patients' complaints and whistle-blowing concerns; the development of clinical governance in primary care; the availability of information about GPs; and professional regulation of doctors and the role of the General Medical Council.

We have been working hard with the medical profession and others over the period since the conviction of Harold Shipman to strengthen the systems, rules and regulations that govern the medical profession, and we are pleased that Dame Janet recognises the progress that has been made.

Dame Janet also welcomes the changes made to date in the NHS complaints procedure and in the increasing amount of information available about doctors' performance. She recognises the progress that has been made in developing systems for handling poor performance and aberrant conduct and the importance of continuing to develop clinical governance in primary care. Her recommendations build on all that work but also reflect her continuing concerns that, in some areas, there has been insufficient change to safeguard patients appropriately.

Dame Janet has made some very significant recommendations that would have a major impact on service delivery. We will need to study them carefully and discuss them with a wide range of stakeholders and interested parties. We also want to consider them alongside recommendations made in the recent inquiry reports into the activities of Clifford Ayling, Cm 6298, and Richard Neale, Cm 6315, both published on 9 September 2004.

She has also made significant recommendations concerning the constitution and operation of the General Medical Council. We have recently made changes to the constitution of the General Medical Council to ensure a far greater voice for patient interests. We will consider carefully the recommendations Dame Janet makes for further reform and the implications of her recommendations for other regulatory bodies in health and social care. Changes to the General Medical Council's disciplinary procedures have also recently been made and came into force only last month. We will consider carefully with the General Medical Council the recommendations in the report for further changes to these procedures.

The scale of Shipman's crimes was unprecedented, and his activities were totally abhorrent. No sanctions will stop conduct like that of Shipman, so our energies must be focused on prevention and early identification of problems. Standards of behaviour must be high, and action against those who fail to maintain those standards must be timely, firm and fair.

In welcoming the inquiry's previous reports, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary (Mr David Blunkett) and the then Secretary of State for Health (Mr Milburn) emphasised the need to learn lessons from the mistakes of the past. All of Dame Janet's reports have provided us with an expert and detailed analysis of where systems failed. We are determined to ensure that all reasonable measures are taken to provide the safeguards that are needed and that the public rightly expect.

Continuing Health Care: Review, revision and restitution.

I would like to acknowledge the work during 2003–04 carried out in bringing together more than 95 health authority criteria into the legally compliant 28 strategic health authority (SHA) criteria which exist today. Having achieved this objective, significantly improved arrangements for assessing new cases, and made good progress with the retrospective review of cases where people have been wrongly denied funding in the past, it is now practical to move forward and improve the system further.

The department will work with the SHAs to build on all the good work done so far. Learning from good practice, we will produce a national approach to continuing care to improve consistency and ease of understanding. We want to help to achieve these aims. This does not constitute a break from past practice. As I have said before, all the current criteria are fair and legal. It will however make the process easier to understand for practitioners and patients alike.

Those set out in Memorandum 2 will be incorporated in the Education (Mandatory Awards) Amendment Regulations 2005 and the Education (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations 2005, which will cover the very small number of students who in 2005–06 will still receive awards and loans under the pre-1998 arrangements. The regulations will all be laid before Parliament in due course.

The Act and accompanying non-legislative measures will deliver a single framework for civil protection in the UK, modernising outdated legislation to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The purpose of the public consultation is to consider the suitability and content of the underpinning regulations and guidance for practitioners and is in accordance with the Government's commitment to launch the consultation shortly after Royal Assent.

Copies of the consultation document, the draft regulations and guidance will be placed in the Library of the House. They can also be viewed on the UK Resilience website ( www.ukresilience.info).

The consultation period will run until 3 March and is being carried out in accordance with the Cabinet Office code of practice on consultation. The final regulations and guidance will be drawn up in light of the responses to the consultation.