| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I repeat what I said in my Answer. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House. The snapshot survey appears as an appendix to the survey report. In terms of the wider publication of the report, my understanding is that 1,000 copies have been distributed to the NHS. The picture tells a good story, which is that the problem of decontamination was considered, reviewed and dealt with.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year scientists at St Mary's Hospital Paddington estimated that half of all instruments used for tonsillectomies could be contaminated with new variant CJD? Is he therefore confident in the Department of Health's decision to abandon the use of single-use instruments because of increased morbidity and mortality associated with them? Does he feel that that is fully justified? How does he expect parents to make informed decisions for their children about whether to ask for single-use or multi-use instruments when he fails to make fully public reports such as the one just mentioned by the noble Baroness?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is wrong, because the full results were made available on 11th December. As far as the question of single-use instruments is concerned, the point that arose from that is that the Medical Devices Agency investigated a number of problems in relation to some tonsillectomy operations. Those investigations identified one of the likely causes of the problem as due to one piece of equipment used in the operation. That is why advice was issued to the health service around single-use instruments. Of course the department's role is to ensure that such advice is promulgated throughout the health service as quickly as possible. That is what happened in this case.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend's Question last December, the Minister said:
- "the snapshot survey to which the noble Baroness referred is being published alongside the full survey that the Government are publishing today".—[Official Report, 11/12/01; col. 1232.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have already stated that the report, including the snapshot survey, was placed in the Library. My understanding—and I have checked with my officials this morning—is that the snapshot survey is part of the documentation which is available on the website. If the noble Baroness had contacted me at any time since 11th December to say that she was having difficulty finding the report, I would have ensured that she received it forthwith.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is often quite difficult to get publications of any sort that are put out by the Department of Health through the Printed Paper Office? The PPO says that those publications do not come there automatically and have to be specially requested.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I made it clear that this would be available in the Library of the House. It seems to me that that is a perfectly appropriate way in which information can be obtained.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, the report was not available in the Library. I went immediately not only to the Printed Paper Office, but to the Library and asked for it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am assured that a copy of the report was placed in the Library. I also say again to the noble Baroness that if she had contacted me at any time since 11th December, I would have ensured that she received a personal copy of the report. The information on the website contains 18 documents. It also provides access to a further 18. I would be delighted to ensure that the noble Baroness receives all 36 reports.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is the Minister—
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the noble Lord—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is fairer for noble Lords who have not had an opportunity to go first.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the Minister has said a lot about reports, but are the instruments being decontaminated in the hospitals? Surely that is the most important thing of all.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. The results of the
survey, which were indeed made available on 11th December, show that no decontamination facility in the NHS was considered unsafe. We have a complete programme of action which has been going for more than two years to improve decontamination facilities. There is clearly no room for complacency, but a great improvement has now taken place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that we ought to move on because there is a very important Question.
House of Lords Reform
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the comments of the Lord Chancellor in the debate on House of Lords reform on 9th January about the interim nature of the Government's proposals on composition are consistent with the White Paper's title The House of Lords: Completing the Reform.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the White Paper was called Completing the Reform following the language of the Labour manifesto of 2001. Your Lordships will recall that, in our previous debates, the removal of the rights of the hereditaries had been described as phase one and that phase two would follow. In our debate on 9th January, I was seeking to explain that the White Paper proposed a phase two which would constitute completion of the reform for the present. I added that, after a period of years, it would no doubt be correct to revisit the composition issue, so that what we were proposing was,
- "a compromise for today, not a solution for all time".—[Official Report, 09/01/02; col. 565.]
Although 120 elected is the maximum possible at present if the rights of the existing 587 life Peers are to be respected, I was indicating that there could be greater flexibility over time. History never ends.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, in light of the very convincing evidence that my noble and learned friend gave last week to the Public Administration Committee in another place, is it not fair to say now on reflection that the White Paper title—Completing the Reform—was inappropriate and perhaps even unfortunate?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, from the reception of the White Paper, I am ready to agree that many people seem to have been misled by the title. As I said, however, we were signalling completing phase one and phase two for now, with the maximum number of
elected being consistent with respecting the right of the existing life Peers. If revisiting the issue at some stage were to be called stage three by others, I would not be uncomfortable with such a description.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that the phasing of any reform—such as that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, with the support of a few Conservative Peers, that 80 per cent of 300 Members be elected; regardless of the actual number and way in which it is arrived at—would count as the last stage of reform?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a very far remove from any of our thinking on this subject that 80 per cent of the Members of this House should ever be elected. We believe that the pre-eminence of the House of Commons is essential to the stability that lies at the bedrock of our constitution. As your Lordships know perfectly well, and as your Lordships' two-day debate showed, the problem is that, on the issue of House of Lords reform, there are as many opinions as there are politicians to express them. So, yes, there is as yet no consensus around the White Paper proposals, but nor is there any consensus around any other set of proposals. I believe that the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, to which reference has been made, would attract near unanimous rejection on the Conservative Benches in this House—that is, if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were to hold a free vote on them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as your Lordships' principal task is to invite the government of the day and the House of Commons to think again, would it not diminish the value of your Lordships' House if we found that, owing to excessive democratisation, we had a majority here that coincided with the majority in the other place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, the bedrock of stability in our constitution is that the elected Chamber is pre-eminent, and is ultimately entitled to have its way when there is conflict with this House. It must be remembered that the conventions underpinning that are premised on this House being unelected and the other place elected. It really is not real-world politics to deny that, if the proportion of elected in this House became substantial, the dynamics of the relationship between both Houses would fundamentally change. It could even be argued that a substantially elected House of Lords had a superior legitimacy, on the basis that there are some who think that PR is more legitimate than first past the post. I emphasise, however, that the Government proposed 120 elected not on the basis that it would give this House greater legitimacy, but as a means of ensuring representation in this House of the nations and the regions.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page