| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Mental Health Act 1983: Section 117
Baroness Barker asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people in England and Wales currently receive free aftercare under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and [HL445]
What is the average length of time for which patients discharged from compulsory in-patient treatment receive free aftercare under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and [HL446]
What is their estimate of the savings to public funds if patients discharged from compulsory in-patient treatment were entitled to free aftercare for six weeks, as proposed in the draft Mental Health Bill, rather than the current entitlement under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to free aftercare until such a time as the Health Authority and the local social services authority are satisfied that patients no longer need such services. [HL447]
Lord Warner: The Department of Health does not routinely collect information on the number of people receiving aftercare upon discharge from compulsion, or the length of time for which they receive it.
We are commissioning some further work to estimate the aftercare costs that would arise from the proposed arrangements under the draft Mental Health Bill, including the transitional arrangements. This work will also estimate the costs of aftercare under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, so that we can estimate any savings that may be made. It will include an analysis of how many people receive aftercare and what the average length of time for which patients discharged from compulsory in-patient treatment receive free aftercare. The analysis will also look at the likely cost of aftercare under the draft Bill after the period of free "intermediate care" and the effect of means testing, so that accurate comparisons can be made between the costs under the 1983 Act and those under the draft Bill.
Inquiries Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce an amendment to the Inquiries Bill to give effect to the recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges' Council that the appointment of a judge to chair a public inquiry should be made with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. [HL497]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): The Inquiries Bill contains an obligation to consult the Lord Chief Justice (or appropriate colleague) before the appointment of any serving judge. This consultation naturally carries with it a requirement to take account of any issues that are raised. The Government believe that the Lord Chief Justice (or appropriate colleague) must be consulted before the appointment of a judge but that he should not hold a right of veto. In order to remain truly independent a judge must be free to decide whether to accept an appointment for his or her self.
National Parking Adjudication Service Report
Viscount Astor asked Her Majesty's Government:
What analysis they have made of the National Parking Adjudication Service report which states that although 20 new councils joined the scheme in 2003 there has been no significant increase in the volume of appeals compared to the previous year. [HL155]
Lord Davies of Oldham: The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) provides free and informal independent adjudication in relation to decisions by local authorities outside London to impose penalty charges for parking contraventions. If
21 Dec 2004 : Column WA151
a local authority rejects representations against the imposition of a penalty charge then they are required to inform the recipient of their right to appeal to an independent adjudicator. Whether they choose to do so is a matter for the recipient of the penalty charge.
Some 8,537 appeals were made to NPAS in the financial year 2002–03 as a result of the issue of 2,156,813 penalty charge notices, an appeal rate of 0.40 per cent. Some 9,205 appeals were made in calendar year 2003 as a result of the issue of 2,447,971 penalty charge notices, an appeal rate of 0.38 per cent. The chief adjudicator in her foreword to the 2003 report suggests that the lower than expected number of appeals may well be due to some councils having become more familiar with the decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) scheme. For example, Manchester generated 1,162 appeals in 2002–03 but only 806 in 2003.
It is also relevant that the 20 new councils joined the DPE scheme at various points in 2003, half of them from 1 September onwards. While those joining the scheme in the second half of the year will have issued penalty charges any resultant appeals will have taken time to work through the system and some will not have arrived with NPAS until early 2004. In this respect it should be noted that comparing financial year 2002–03 (April 2002 to March 2003) with calendar year 2003 is not an exact like for like comparison.
Railways: Salisbury to Yeovil Line
Lord Patten asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what date the single track line with passing places on the railway between Salisbury and Yeovil will be modernised to double track. [HL421]
Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand that there are no plans to double track this line at present.
M1
Lord Mason of Barnsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many accidents have occurred on the M1 during each of the past 12 months; how many resulting deaths occurred; how many injuries required hospital treatment; and to what extent foreign registered vehicles were involved. [HL448]
Lord Davies of Oldham: Incidents on the M1 motorway are currently handled by the police forces in whose area they occur. Details of incidents that have been reported to the Highways Agency between November 2003 and July 2004 are shown in the table below.
21 Dec 2004 : Column WA152
The Highways Agency does not have information about the extent to which foreign registered vehicles were involved.
Network Rail
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make information available so that, when Network Rail responds to Questions for Written Answer, the response is included in the Written Answer in the Official Report, as is the practice with questions answered by the Highways Agency. [HL484]
Lord Davies of Oldham: Network Rail is a private sector company, not a government agency, and the practices for questions answered by government agencies are not applicable.
Arrangements for answering written Paliamentary Questions on Network Rail were agreed between the Government and the company earlier this year as part of a Cabinet Office review of administrative burdens on the rail industry.
Network Rail has agreed to provide information for inclusion in replies to written Parliamentary Questions where the information requested is readily available and can be provided within the relevant deadline. Where Questions relate to operational matters and the information is not readily available, replies will explain that the issue is an operational matter for Network Rail and that Network Rail will directly contact the noble Lord concerned. The Government have agreed with Network Rail that it would not be appropriate for copies of letters from a private sector company to be published in the Official Report.
Navigation Aids in Irish Territorial Waters
Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the cost in each year since 1918 of maintaining aids to navigation in Irish territorial waters. [HL376]
Lord Davies of Oldham: The costs in each year since 1965 to 2004 of maintaining aids to navigation in Irish territorial waters are set out below. Records are not available beyond 1965.
21 Dec 2004 : Column WA153
1 Estimated
21 Dec 2004 : Column WA154
From 1985, the Irish Government have made a contribution to the cost of aids in the Republic of Ireland.
| Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |