Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Earl Howe

Report stage
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has once again highlighted the important issue of land use, and I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s plans in this area. First, the Government agree with the intention behind the amendment. Major influences on the use of land must be considered in the round—that is completely accepted and indeed it is why Defra has been working closely with a number of other departments to develop the content of the land use framework for England, which will be published this year. The framework will provide a long-term perspective and, to pick up the point the noble Baroness made, it is supported by the latest advances in spatial data science. We have developed the evidence base needed to ensure that policy can make a virtue of the diversity of natural capital across the landscapes of England.

That said, the Government’s view is that it is neither necessary nor sensible to specify the framework’s scope and purpose in legislation at this stage. There is a very simple reason for that: our work on the framework needs to be open to the latest evidence and insights and indeed, if necessary, to change as our understanding continues to develop. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that the principles she has highlighted are very much in our minds as we approach this important task and that we look forward to engaging with her, and indeed everyone else with an interest, in due course. I hope that, with those reassurances, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I am delighted to hear that the framework will emerge before the end of the year—I will hold him to that. We all wait to see what the Government come up with. My anxiety is that a set of principles launched on everybody is going to set up antibodies among landowners big and small, because they will not have been consulted on it and that is not the right foot to get off on, no matter how much consultation then follows. I look forward to seeing what the Government produce, and at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Earl Howe

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other 15 government amendments in this group. Amendment 225 to Clause 120 of the Bill, along with Amendments 226 and 227, are minor and technical. In developing NSIP applications, applicants are required to consult statutory consultees who provide expert advice to ensure that infrastructure is delivered in a way that supports our objectives, including those around enhancing the natural environment, public safety and protecting historic assets.

Clause 120 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to set up a charging regime for specific statutory consultees to recover their costs for the services they provide to applicants when engaging on NSIP applications. Our policy objective is to ensure that applicants should pay for advice from specific statutory consultees throughout the consenting process, and to support statutory consultees to achieve full cost recovery for their services.

Exemptions in subsections (4) and (6) of the new section inserted by Clause 120 were originally included to ensure that excluded persons were not liable for the costs of advice provided to them, so that regulations could make it clear that the applicant bears liability for such costs. However, through discussions with relevant statutory consultees, it has become clear that these subsections would also prevent applicants being charged where the Secretary of State engages with statutory consultees directly. Therefore, the clause would prevent specific statutory consultees recovering costs requested by an excluded person—even from applicants—in a timely way that supports faster decisions on applications for development consent.

To ensure that the clause delivers our policy aims, I propose that new subsection (4), and in consequence, a number of excluded persons defined in new subsection (6), be removed. The removal of these exemptions is required to achieve our original policy intention, whereby statutory consultees should be able to obtain full cost recovery for the provision of their services in relation to NSIPs, regardless of the person to whom those services are provided.

I now turn briefly to government Amendments 229 and 230. In Committee, we introduced an amendment to allow prescribed bodies named in regulations to charge fees for providing advice or information in connection with applications or proposals under the planning Acts, as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is now Clause 128 of the Bill. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, eloquently set out on behalf of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hayman of Ullock, that the exclusion in new subsection (3)(b) on charging for advice provided to planning decision-makers could have the effect of inhibiting charging where applicants enter into a voluntary agreement with statutory consultees to provide advice or assistance as part of the planning application.

It is obviously not the intention of the power to disincentivise proactive and early engagement between applicants and statutory consultees or prevent statutory consultees charging where an applicant has voluntarily paid for a premium service—quite the opposite. On larger-scale proposals, there may be a need to have sustained and ongoing engagement with statutory consultees. So, as with the NSIP charging powers, we have listened and are making changes to address the issues raised. Through Amendments 229 and 230, we are changing Clause 128. These changes will have the effect of removing new subsections (3)(b) and (5), which provide for the exclusion. This should allay any concerns over the scope of our charging power and will allow us to work through the model of statutory consultee charging with the sector, through regulations. I should add that we have engaged with Defra, which sponsors Natural England, and the Environment Agency, and they see this amendment as a positive step forward.

All the other government amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 263A, are consequential to the marine licensing cost recovery powers. Clause 214 as introduced, which is now Clause 222, gave the Secretary of State new powers to make regulations which set the level of fees payable for post-consent marine licence monitoring, variations and transfers, where the Secretary of State is the appropriate marine licensing authority under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. We are now extending those powers to Scottish Ministers, where the Scottish Ministers are the appropriate licensing authority under that Act in the Scottish offshore region, to avoid a legislative gap. In conclusion, the amendments are important as they remove any potential uncertainty as to the nature and scope of our cost recovery powers for statutory consultees and ensure that they can be made more effective. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 227A on an issue the Minister has already touched on: enabling statutory consultees, such as Natural England, Historic England and the Environment Agency, to charge both planning decision-makers and applicants for the advice they are required to give. That is, as the Minister noted, a valuable part of the planning system which supports the Government’s aspirations on growth and environmental sustainability.

Currently, this work is funded from statutory consultees’ ordinary budgets, and the growth in planning applications means that more and more money is drained from those ordinary budgets and away from their ordinary and very necessary work. The statutory consultees have tried to become as efficient as possible to cope, but the cost to them is now £50 million a year, and 60% of that is borne by Natural England and the Environment Agency. I declare my interests as a former chairman of Natural England’s predecessor and a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. In effect, that means that the planning system is operating with a hidden subsidy at the statutory consultees’ expense, with the major focus being on the planning proposals which present the greatest potential environmental impact due to their size and location—inevitably, those cost the most money for the statutory bodies to inquire into and report on.

As the Minister said, Clause 120 introduces charging for nationally strategic infrastructure projects, but it does not cover ordinary Town and Country Planning Act casework. I thank both Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their assiduity and flexibility in discussing that with me and others. They have made some limited concessions, but, at the end of the day, I ask the Government: why is there not a level playing field between Town and Country Planning Act casework and casework for nationally strategic infrastructure projects? That would resolve the issue for the statutory consultees.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She and I go back a long way to the days when I was a Minister in MAFF and she was chief executive of the RSPB. A photograph of a stone curlew used to sit on my ministerial desk. I pay tribute to her as a staunch defender of the natural environment over many years, including in her current role as chair of the Woodland Trust.

I turn to her Amendment 295, alongside Amendment 312E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. Amendment 295 seeks to transpose the existing purposes of green belt land from the National Planning Policy Framework into statute. It would also add new purposes in regard to climate change, biodiversity, natural capital and public access. Amendment 312E seeks to probe the possibility of introducing legislation in relation to the green belt.

Although I entirely understand the sentiment behind these amendments, the government view is that these matters are best dealt with in national planning policy rather than legislation. National planning policy already sets out the purposes of the green belt. Such land is vital for preventing urban sprawl and encroachment on valued countryside, while enabling towns and cities to grow sustainably. National planning policy includes strong protections to safeguard this important land for future generations and these protections are to remain firmly in place.

For example, national policy is already clear that the green belt can and should support public access and that opportunities for greening should be taken. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, mentioned that there is already provision to say that a local authority should not propose to alter a green belt boundary unless there are exceptional circumstances and it can show, at examination of the local plan, that it has explored every other reasonable option. That, I suggest, is a strong protection.

Another example is our recent consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. We proposed new wording on green belt boundary policy, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lansley. Our proposed changes are intended to make clear that green belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting objectively assessed housing need over the plan period. We are currently analysing consultation responses. He questioned the utility of that change. My understanding is that in the current wording of the framework there is a straightforward permissive power for local authorities with regard to green belt boundaries. The wording is not slanted either way. We think it could be beneficial to slant it in the way the consultation proposes. I do not agree that it would absolve local authorities from achieving sustainable development.

Incidentally, my noble friend Lord Lansley asked about the existing boundaries within the definition of national development management policy. We have been clear about what aspects of current policy would be a national development management policy. The decision-making parts of current policy, such as that on the green belt, would form the basis of NDMPs. The Government have also committed to consulting on amendments to national planning policy to reflect the commitment in the levelling up White Paper to bring forward measures to green the green belt, so that it can better fulfil its potential as land of scenic, biodiversity and recreational value, as well as checking urban sprawl.

Some powerful points have been made in this debate, not least by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Taylor and Lady Willis of Summertown, about the green potential of green belt. We are working with Defra, Natural England and others to consider how local nature recovery strategies can benefit green belt and other greenfield land to improve people’s access and connection to nature, and to maintain and restore habitat, wildlife populations and woodland. All this is work in progress and I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of our consultation on the detail of the green belt policy in the framework.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was hoping for greater certainty at this point, or at least the prospect of it; however, I cannot provide that today for the reasons I have given. Nevertheless, I hope that what I have said will give her enough reassurance that the Government are committed to consulting on giving the green belt a greener purpose and that she will be content to withdraw her amendment on that basis. Equally, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will not move her amendment when we reach it.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. At least, I think I thank them all. There are one or two I probably do not agree with. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham, amply showed how the polarisation argument about green belt is quite corrosive. It cannot be either/or; it has to be both. We have very little land in this country and we are asking more and more of it, so we have to find ways to meet all the needs for land effectively. That is the subject of another amendment that I have tabled to the Bill. In particular, I hope I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who seemed to imply that if green belt did not meet the broader criteria, other than just urban sprawl reduction, that was a good reason for building on it. In my view, we should be asking: how do we get this land, which is primarily for the purpose of restraining urban sprawl, also to do other things while it is at it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for proposing this group of amendments, all of which are related to the protection of trees. I should start by saying that as a member of the Woodland Trust, and as an owner of woodlands myself, which are interests I should declare, I have sympathy with the spirit of these amendments. I shall, however, attempt to persuade the noble Baroness that they are unnecessary or, in some cases, undesirable.

First, Amendment 296 seeks to make all offences of contravening a tree preservation order or tree regulations subject to an unlimited maximum fine. I understand the sentiment behind this proposal. It is right that there needs to be a credible threat of significant fines if we want to protect the trees that we most cherish. However, I think there is an important distinction between deliberate damage to a tree, leading to its total destruction, and, for example, the loss of a single branch, where the tree itself survives. Our current approach to fines recognises this difference. Wilful damage leading to the destruction or likely destruction of a tree is punishable by an unlimited fine, and there are examples of the courts handing down significant fines. Less serious offences—for example, where someone prunes a tree and is perhaps unaware that it is protected by a tree preservation order—are subject to a lower maximum fine of up to £2,500.

I firmly believe that the current approach is the right one. It is proportionate and fair, and provides a clear steer to the courts. For these reasons, I am afraid I am not able to support this amendment.

I turn to Amendments 297 to 299. Amendment 297 would provide a definition of “amenity” for tree preservation orders. Amendment 298 would make it clear that local planning authorities may utilise tree preservation orders proactively and where there is no indication of an intent to undertake works to a tree. Amendment 299 would maintain protections for dead trees and ensure that they remain eligible for tree preservation orders.

The Government recognise the need to protect and enhance biodiversity through the planning system, and trees are central to this. I agree with the noble Baroness that tree preservation orders are important tools. Local planning authorities may now use them, as she recognised, to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have a significant negative impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. This gives local planning authorities scope to protect the trees important to their communities, whether for amenity or for wider reasons.

The making of tree preservation orders is discretionary and local planning authorities may confer this protection where there is a risk or an emerging risk of damage to trees. So I argue that it is unnecessary to make an amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure their proactive use. Perhaps the fact that I am putting that on the record will be helpful.

I turn to the definition of “amenity”. There is already a wide definition within the tree preservation order regime of the concept of amenity. The meaning of amenity is deliberately not defined in statute, so that decision-makers can apply their full planning judgment to individual cases. The term is, however, already well understood and applied to a wide range of circumstances, with the planning practice guidance already being clear that the importance to nature conservation or responding to climate change may be considered.

Changing the meaning of amenity in the way proposed could lead to uncertainty for considering tree preservation orders and risks unintended consequences more generally in the planning system. Tree preservation orders protect living trees; they do not protect dead trees. It is important that dead trees are exempt from orders, as urgent works may need to be taken where dead trees pose a risk. In particular, for group and woodland tree preservation orders, diseased trees can pose biosecurity risks. Ash dieback is a classic example in which you absolutely have to be proactive. I speak from very recent personal experience. Preventing the spread of disease from dying trees is often very important. There can often also be an urgent need to protect the public, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said.

Looking at the wider picture, tree preservation orders are only one of the tools we have to ensure these invaluable assets are protected. For example, our already strong protections for biodiversity in the planning system give consideration to the preservation and value of trees. We are also taking significant further steps to improve outcomes for biodiversity in the planning system through the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement in the Environment Act 2021. This will make trees of value to development, given the significant biodiversity value they bring. This will help ensure that trees are seen as integral to development as opposed to a barrier to it. Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit of these amendments, I am not able to support them, bearing in mind the breadth of protections that trees are already afforded. I hope I provided enough reassurance for the noble Baroness not to move these amendments when they are reached.

Amendment 301 seeks to introduce a requirement for public consultation prior to a local planning authority deciding to revoke a tree preservation order. The existing revocation process, as set out in the tree preservation regulations, is long established. Among other matters, it requires a local planning authority to notify persons interested in the affected land that an order has been revoked.

While the current legislation does not require public consultation, in practice I expect that local planning authorities would want to engage and consult with interested parties before reaching their decision. Our planning practice guidance makes clear that this option is open to them. The current approach to the revocation of tree preservation orders is squarely in line with revocation processes in other parts of the planning system, for example, where a local listed building consent order is revoked.

In summing up, I hope I have provided reassurances to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and that she will be content to withdraw Amendment 296 and not move her other amendments in this group when they are reached.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I will just make a couple of points to the Minister.

The mood music around TPOs is really important. There is guidance, as the Minister has said, on revocation, but its implementation is very patchy across the country. The definition of who is interested in the land can be interpreted very narrowly so that the folk who are clearly interested—local residents on a wider basis—are often not informed about revocations. That is just one example of where these amendments intend to demonstrate that the Government are serious about TPOs and want to create a different mood music around them.

In terms of dead and dying trees, local authorities currently move very rapidly to remedy, for example, trees that are coming into a dangerous condition and need to be felled. Those of us who have got ash dieback know that they can move very rapidly on that. I do not think there is a real problem around saying that TPOs must be strengthened because there is disease. What we want for TPOs is a presumption for retention of trees, rather than the possibility of both revocation and removal of dead and dying trees. I am obviously not of the same mind as the Minister.

I will make a slightly barbed political point. I do not know whether there are any friends of the Conservative leader of Plymouth council in the Chamber. He must be rather regretting that he was not strenuous about the observation of tree protection orders, since he lost his job over the recent debacle of the illegal felling of trees in Plymouth. So I urge the Government to recognise that the public, bless their hearts, have the bit between their teeth on this. Unless the Government demonstrate that they recognise that there is a point, and unless they make some movement towards finding ways of enabling the public to be more effectively involved and to feel that TPOs are a stronger protection, this could happen again and again.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It might be helpful if I write her a letter to follow up this debate, picking up some of her points, now and in her opening speech, that I may not have picked up in my response.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that, and I look forward to his letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 300 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would require within three months of the Bill achieving Royal assent the implementation of the Government’s commitment to amend the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021 so that local planning authorities must consult the Secretary of State if they want to grant planning permission for developments affecting ancient woodland. Let me first make clear to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords who have spoken that we are committed to reviewing the direction to require authorities to refer applications if they are minded to grant permission for developments affecting ancient woodland.

As the noble Baroness knows, the direction is a strategic tool aimed at ensuring the right applications are captured. Noble Lords will be aware of consultation which has taken place recently on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, which I mentioned earlier. It may be helpful for context if I say that there are other requests being made for inclusion in the direction. We really need to amend it in a managed way, capturing all the issues to provide clarity and stability to authorities, developers and others.

The noble Baroness is a resolute campaigner on these issues, and, indeed, referred to herself “banging on” about them in the House last year. She does so extremely effectively and long may that last, but in this instance I cannot give my support to the hard deadline she seeks, as it is important that the direction be updated in a coherent and managed way. I realise I am asking the noble Baroness to be patient for a while longer, but I hope she will be content to withdraw her amendment on that basis.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for the support they have shown for this amendment. We have to remember that less than 2% of ancient woodland remains in this country. We are right on the brink, being down to such a small number of fragments that are, in many cases, increasingly unviable, so it is a real and pressing issue. The Minister has asked me to have patience. I am glad he was able to restate the commitment to the amendment to the direction, but my attitude to being asked to be patient will depend on how long that patience has to last. I wonder whether he can say how long it will have to last, because it has lasted now for a year and a half. If it were another year and half, I think I might have run out of patience. I do not know if I can press him now to say when the amendment might emerge. I very rarely read in Hansard how wonderful the Government have been, but I would commit to saying how wonderful they are if the Minister can tell us when this change to the direction might happen.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to be able to tell the noble Baroness but, having asked this question myself, I fear I cannot give a definite timescale at the moment. I am sorry for that.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

On that basis, I do not think I can guarantee not to come back on Report with something on this, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Earl Howe

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My understanding of this is that, because the Government would not come forward with a more general provision, this amendment has been hitched on to the Bill in desperation because it seemed to be a sensible place to try to get it into. The convolutions that the Minister is rightly pointing out would be solved at a stroke if there were to be a ban on differentiated packaging across the board and standardised packaging were introduced for all cigarettes.

[Earl Howe]

That indeed is my understanding. Noble Lords have taken the opportunity of this Bill to raise the dangers of smoking, particularly of passive smoking for children, and I have no issue with that. I merely point out that there are problems with the amendment as drafted. I am not saying that it would not be possible to draft another amendment which noble Lords might care to consider between now and Report. Being able to enforce these provisions as drafted is also a significant aspect. For example, it may be hard to judge whether a product could reasonably be expected to attract children, as the amendment would require, or to determine what might be aimed at or would attract 18 year-olds but not, let us say, 17 year-olds or 13 year-olds.

I am grateful to noble Lords for raising this important issue and for keeping this debate at the front of our minds. It is a debate that we need to continue. As I have said, the Government have yet to make a decision on this policy, but if we were to bring in such a measure, we would not want it to be circumscribed in the way that is proposed. We would not want to set up a situation in which both branded and standardised packs could be sold legally depending on where they were sold and what other products were sold alongside them. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments and respectfully suggest that they consider other avenues for bringing this matter before the House on Report.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Earl Howe

Monday 13th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to remind him very respectfully that we are on Report and not in Committee. I am trying to work through my arguments, which I hoped would have a flow to them, but my flow has been interrupted. I am getting to what I hope he wants me to get to.

I was saying that the amendment would effectively require you to prove a negative—in this case, that people were not told about something going wrong with their healthcare. If they were not aware of the error, they would not be aware that they had not been told about it, and the volume of incidents is such that a single national body could not possibly verify compliance with that requirement.

I know that the noble Baroness advocates that the CQC should not routinely monitor this duty and instead should require organisations only to provide evidence that they encourage openness through having appropriate procedures and policies in place. Unfortunately, what that creates—this point was made by my noble friend Lord Ribeiro—is a tick-box exercise. Organisations can provide all the assurances in the world that processes are in place and therefore they are considered to be compliant, when in actual fact it could be that patients were still not being told about errors in their care. That is not acceptable and would not deliver the culture change that we need. We must have a requirement that ensures that patients are told of errors, not one that pays lip service to this and allows organisations—

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

I was not intending to speak on this amendment but, as the former chairman of the Care Quality Commission, I have to make a point.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

I merely want to ask the noble Earl what the material difference is between this requirement being laid on organisations by the CQC and many of the other basic requirements that are laid on organisations by the CQC. Those organisations are not inspected in detail on an ongoing basis, but the requirement is intended to seek from providers of health or social care an outline of how they intend to deliver that requirement, without their being inspected regularly in all cases.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I hope I have already explained that. In our conversation with the CQC, it made very clear that this would not be like any other requirement placed upon it. A requirement to prove candour will require the CQC to engage in a much more continuous and intensive process of monitoring than some of its other requirements. That was the distinction that it made and that is why it said that it did not have the capacity to fulfil this duty if it were built into the Bill.

I am afraid that the amendment would not be effective in meeting our shared objective. That is my problem with it. I have listened to the arguments put across by noble Lords in relation to primary care. I want to see openness in primary care as much as I do in secondary care. However, we still need to consider which requirements would work best in primary care.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Earl Howe

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord. We want to get closer to the question of what represents value for money in primary care. There are perhaps two principal ingredients of that equation. The first is the money we put into primary care, which we will know through the resource allocation formula, with which the noble Lord is familiar; the second is through highlighting the results achieved through primary care. Primary care clinicians will be accountable as never before by reference to the outcomes that they achieve for their patients. The other ingredient, overarching all that, is transparency. The more measures of performance that we can devise and place into the public domain the better in my view, and in the next few weeks, we will be announcing measures that I hope will be welcome in that regard. However, we are starting from a low base—not much information is currently published. We want to change that, and ensure not only that clinical commissioning groups and the NHS board are aware of all this but that patients and the public are aware of how well or badly a practice is performing. All these things such as prescribing rates and referral rates are key measures of performance, which we have to get closer to. If we can ensure that practices themselves are more able to compare their own performance with those of their peers, that too will be an advance. I am sure that this is a rich seam, as the noble Lord put it, and we very much hope to advance on that front over the coming months.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

Can I just press the noble Earl on that point? We have a situation at the moment that I think is not in patients’ interests. If you want to find out about the quality of diabetes care by provider, hospital or trust in this country, you can find out about it perfectly well; if you want to find out about the quality of diabetes care commissioned by a PCT, you can find out about it perfectly well. The quality of care being delivered to people with diabetes by general practitioners is available and can be seen by general practitioners—who can compare their performance with each other—but it is not available for people with diabetes. Quite frankly, I think that is outrageous and I would urge the Minister to do something about that now.