| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Human Rights Act
33. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Whether the ministerial statement under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, of compatibility with the European convention on human rights, is reviewed at each stage of consideration of a Bill. [161274]
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The Minister's statement of compatibility with the ECHR is formally reviewed when a Bill passes to the second House. However, it is intended that Parliament should be able to take the convention rights into account as part of normal debate. For this reason Ministers in charge of Bills will wish to be as forthcoming as they can in replying to questions from any Member about compatibility at any stage of the Bill's passage.
Mr. Heath : I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that answer, but I am not sure that the process is sufficiently complete. We have a certificate from a Minister when a Bill is published, but it is nonsense that is not repeated at any stage, despite the fact that a Bill can be almost entirely rewritten during consideration in Committee or on Report. Surely it would be more appropriate if, at each stage, a Minister said that the Bill still complied with the Act and, if it did not, explained why not. I remind the Leader of the House that the amendments may not be in the name of the Minister. They may have been tabled by others who do not have access to the same legal advice as Ministers.
Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights monitors legislation that is before Parliament and plays
a valuable role. If any incompatibility issue arose, it would spot that. Equally, the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is an obligation under the Act that we come into line with ECHR compatibility, unless a statement is made giving very good reason why we should not. So there is no way in which any Minister will find himself or herself out of compliance with that requirement of the legislation.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): I am glad that the Leader of the House mentioned the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I wanted to ask him about the Committee's report published today, which states that there is a risk that emergency regulations made under the Civil Contingencies Bill would violate the European convention on human rights. The Government have promised that an amendment will be tabled so that the maker of regulations under the Civil Contingencies Act would have to make a section 19 statement. Does the Leader of the House plan to spread that principle more widely to other secondary legislation? What happens if the statement says that the regulations are not compatible? Would they still be legally enforceable?
Mr. Hain: I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is yes. I will look afresh at the points he makes, but, as I say, it is a requirement on all Ministers to inform the House about compatibility, and in the event that there are very good and persuasive reasons for incompatibility, that must be explained to the House as well. I do not think that that arises in this instance.
Standing Committee Papers
34. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): If he will propose to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons that it examine ways of simplifying Standing Committee papers. [161275]
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House accepts that the provision of information to Members—those serving on Standing Committees and others—may benefit from some modernisation.
Kevin Brennan : I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Is it not the case that the purpose of the Modernisation Committee is not to deal with the trivial issues that are sometimes debated such as hours, but to improve the opportunities for Members to scrutinise the Executive? Is it not daft that in Standing Committees Members have to consult at least four different bits of paper when they are trying to follow a Bill's progress, including the explanatory notes to the Bill, the selection list and the amendment paper? Could not all that be on one screen, on which hon. Members could see what was being discussed, what difference the amendment would make and what the explanation for it was? Why cannot we get on and modernise, as has been done in other institutions, such as the National Assembly for Wales?
Mr. Woolas: I saw the frown of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee deepen with every question. The
answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) is yes. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House accepts that there is a case for reassessing from time to time the form of all our Committee papers, and if there is a way of making the scrutiny of Bills easier for all Members in all parts of the House through modernisation, that should be considered. I suggest that my hon. Friend write to the Leader of the House in his capacity as Chair of the Modernisation Committee to ask how that may be taken forward.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for mentioning the Procedure Committee. I personally believe, as I think the Leader of the House might, that the matter may well be one for the Procedure Committee. Bearing in mind the fact that Members chosen by you, Mr. Speaker, chair Standing Committees, I should have thought that the Chairmen's Panel should also discuss the matter. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) asked a very good question. Will the Leader of the House discuss the matter with me and consider which bodies of the House could take it forward?
Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would wish to do that. We all recognise the difficulties that arise in relation to amendments in Standing Committees, especially when several are tabled overnight. I am sure that all Members are grateful for the guidance of the Chairmen of Standing Committees on discussing amendments in
accordance with the right procedures. It therefore makes sense, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, to consult them.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Does the Minister recognise that it is not only the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) who finds the proceedings of Standing Committees incomprehensible? There is a great deal of evidence that the public find those proceedings completely beyond them. Given that they are the people who send us here, and that they are often interested in the way in which we deal with legislation, do the Minister and the Leader of the House propose to consider the problem from the point of view of accessibility to the public? The proceedings of Standing Committees contrast sharply with those of Select Committees, which the public do find comprehensible.
Mr. Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The Modernisation Committee has been taking evidence from members of the public around the country, and one of the findings of that consultation exercise exactly confirms his point. If it is sometimes difficult for Members to understand these procedures, they are often impenetrable to members of the public. The thrust of the Modernisation Committee's work is accessibility to, and understanding of, this House; that is one of the prime goals of this Government. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for that goal as a member of the Modernisation Committee. In achieving it, however, we must not forget the checks and balances of our system that give rights to Back Benchers: that would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Developments in vCJD
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement about the action that Government are taking following a blood transfusion incident involving variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease—VCJD. On 17 December last year, I informed the House about the implications of the incident and gave an undertaking to keep it informed of any major developments. As you will know from our conversation last night, Mr. Speaker, I regret that an inaccurate press report appeared before I was able to make this statement to the House. I believe that it has been replicated in another inaccurate press report this morning.
The House may recall that my Department had become aware of a patient who had contracted variant CJD after receiving a transfusion of blood from a donor who went on to develop variant CJD himself. That is a possible, not a proven, causal connection. I told the House that a further 15 patients had been identified who had received transfusions from donors who had gone on to develop variant CJD. I said in my statement of last December that the Health Protection Agency, working with the National Blood Service, was in the process of contacting the individuals concerned. I can now report that all surviving individuals have been contacted and informed about the circumstances of their case.
As on previous occasions when we have become aware of new information about blood and variant CJD, we have ensured that action has been taken on a precautionary basis to reduce the risk of a transmission of the disease. I stress that we are acting on a precautionary basis—the basis on which we have introduced a range of measures since 1997. For instance, since 1998 we have ensured that blood products are made only from plasma imported from countries that are free of, or have very few cases of, variant CJD. We introduced leucodepletion—removal of the white cells—of all blood for transfusion from 31 October 1999. Two years ago, in 2002, we instructed the National Blood Service to use only imported fresh frozen plasma for the treatment of children born after 1996. That will come into effect for newborn children this month, and will be extended to older children as soon as is practicable.
In the light of the transfusion incident that I reported last December, the chief medical officer asked the expert Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation to consider whether there was a need to take any further measures on a precautionary basis. That request was made with the proviso that such measures should not have an unmanageable adverse impact on the safety or availability of blood. We are therefore talking about a balance of risk, given that, with a need for about 800,000 transfusions and 3 million blood components a year, the dangers of a shortage of blood are obvious to all.
Our experts met on 22 January to discuss a number of options for further strengthening the protection of the blood supply in addition to those that I outlined to the House in December. On the basis of all the information available, and taking a precautionary approach, our experts concluded that the United Kingdom should
exclude from donating blood people who have previously received transfusions of whole blood components since January 1980. They also advised that additional measures should be introduced to improve further the effectiveness of the use of blood in hospitals.I have accepted the chief medical officer's advice to accept that recommendation of the advisory committee. The group of people excluded from donating blood will therefore be limited to those who confirm that they have received a transfusion in the UK since 1 January 1980. It is generally accepted that there would have been no exposure to BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy—in the UK before that date.
I stress that the risk attaching to that group of blood donors is uncertain, but we are taking those measures as a precaution because the risk may be slightly higher among that group than among the population as a whole. Excluding those donors will inevitably lead to a reduction in the supply of blood available for transfusions. Although the National Blood Service estimates a loss of 52,000 donors, I am pleased to report that it has put in place measures to help to compensate for those losses, and hospitals are being encouraged to make the best possible use of blood. In the meantime, I should like to take the opportunity to thank the blood donors in the group affected by the change for their contribution towards saving and improving patients' lives.
At the meeting on 22 January, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation acknowledged that a period of some weeks would be needed to allow the blood services to put in hand the preparation of communication material for donors and the setting up of training programmes for blood service staff. It recommended 5 April as the date for implementation, and the National Blood Service asked us to time our public announcement to coincide with a point three weeks before implementation. That is why I am making this statement to the House today. Those steps are being put in motion as I speak.
The advice of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation and the National Blood Service is that we should identify people who have received a previous blood transfusion by self-reporting, using questionnaire screening, when they come forward to give blood. That action is being implemented now. Another group of potential donors will be people who had an operation in the past but are unsure whether they had a blood transfusion at that time. I have asked the advisory committee to consider whether any further action is required as part of the general review of the measures, and to report back to me.
Earlier in this statement, I mentioned that this process was about balancing risks. I now turn briefly to the other part of the process, which involves ensuring that blood in hospitals is put to the best possible use. I consider blood that has been donated voluntarily to be a precious resource for our health service. We therefore have a responsibility to donors and patients alike to ensure that it is used to the best possible effect. That said, it is clear that the best-used blood is often the unit of blood that is not used when it is not needed. I am, therefore, concerned that blood transfusions should be made only where there is a clear clinical need.
It has been widely acknowledged that more blood is ordered and more is used than is clinically necessary. Considerable efforts have been made over the past five years to encourage more efficient use of blood in clinical practice. In 2002, all four of the United Kingdom's chief medical officers launched an initiative to ensure that the "better blood transfusion" strategy is an integral part of NHS care, to make blood transfusion safer, to avoid unnecessary use of blood in clinical practice and to provide better information to patients and the public. We have seen good progress in taking this initiative forward.
I am pleased to report that NHS trusts have been introducing improved arrangements to oversee all aspects of transfusion, and developing protocols for transfusion practice, based on national guidelines. Work is also being undertaken in a number of other key areas such as the development of additional guidelines for trusts on the resources needed to implement "better blood transfusion" and the establishment of the role of specialist practitioners of transfusion. While this progress is encouraging, we cannot be complacent. The expected loss of supply as a result of today's announcement means that we need to increase our efforts in the more appropriate use of blood. The chief medical officer is producing a revised approach to push forward the "better blood transfusion" strategy.
I hope that my statement has provided the House with a clear indication of the path that we have chosen and why we have chosen it. I would like to end by stressing two things. First, as I said last December, we are following a highly precautionary approach. I understand that people may have concerns about the implications of this announcement, but I would emphasise again that this action is being taken because of an uncertain but slight risk. People should, indeed, continue to have a blood transfusion when it is really necessary. Any slight risk associated with receiving blood must be balanced against the significant risk of not receiving that blood when it is most needed.
My second point is that, particularly at this time, people who can do so should continue to donate blood. Blood donation is a safe procedure and people should continue to donate blood regularly. We place great value on those who already donate and would welcome new donors. I am sure that the whole House is deeply grateful to all of them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |