You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Daily Hansard
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall not trespass on the patience of the House by producing an answer quite as
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1358
 
long as the question. Healthcare-acquired infections in the UK are at similar levels to those in Europe: 9 per cent in the UK; 7 per cent in the Netherlands; 8 per cent in Spain and Denmark and 6 to 10 per cent in France. So, we have a problem similar in scale to the rest of Europe. We have tackled that very energetically. I remind the noble Baroness that we know about the scale of MRSA in our hospitals only because this Government introduced a mandatory surveillance system, whereas the previous government relied on a voluntary system, which understated the problem.

Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I should like to ask a totally non-partisan question. Does the Minister have any figures which give a comparison either way with the private sector in the UK?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the problem is that in the private sector there is a high percentage of elective surgery whereas in the NHS many of the patients who are being treated are much more vulnerable to healthcare-acquired infections and MRSA. Furthermore, the pressures on NHS beds are rather higher than the pressures on private sector beds.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the NAO report demonstrates quite clearly that we have the worst rates of MRSA in Europe. That is a matter of record. This is a matter of basic hygiene and it is clear that not enough progress has been made since the NAO report was produced. Does the Minister not accept any criticism of the Government at all on this matter? Furthermore, have the Government considered the adoption of British standards on this matter for every hospital and bringing in cleaning services to hospitals so that ward managers have proper control of cleaning?

Lord Warner: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear yesterday that the Government take this issue very seriously. It is this Government who came out with a strategy called Winning Ways in December last year, and, as I said in my Answer, it is this Government who came out with further plans in Towards Cleaner Hospitals and Lower Rates of Infection. However, we must also take account of the fact that in terms of healthcare-acquired infections, we are not out of line with the rest of Europe. We have a particular problem with MRSA, as do other countries. I would remind noble Lords that the United States, which has lower bed occupancy than this country, has similar levels of MRSA to the UK.

Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that the responsibility lies with the medical
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1359
 
profession, with the nursing profession, and with the trusts which administer hospitals? It is a bit much to expect the Prime Minister himself to swab the wards.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we know that the Prime Minister is a greatly talented person, but even he probably could not clean all the hospitals along with his day job. What my noble said about the importance of engaging all staff in this area is correct. Healthcare-acquired infection is a problem for everyone. Some trusts have met their waiting list targets and have a good record on MRSA rates, so it can be done. Somerset NHS Trust and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust are two examples. The Government are now fully engaged with staff on this issue. If people read the document Towards Cleaner Hospitals and Lower Rates of Infection, they will see the range of measures that we shall take in full co-operation with the medical and nursing professions to clean hospitals where that needs to be done.

Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—

Lord Grocott: My Lords, we shall have to move on to the fourth Question. We are well into the 24th minute.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the issue is being addressed in our review of international human rights instruments, the outcomes of which we intend to announce before the Summer Recess. The review was announced to Parliament on 7 March 2002, and has been the subject of various Questions and debate. Although the review was internal to government, representations were invited and received from a wide range of outside organisations and from the public. We have given these careful consideration.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Can the Minister confirm that every other member of the European Union has accepted the optional protocol, as have the great Commonwealth democracies and 39 countries of the Council of Europe, and that we are the only major European state
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1360
 
not to have done so? Is there not a powerful case for consulting Parliament on this—at least through its Human Rights Committee—given that Ministers are judges in their own cause if they continue to use their prerogative powers to prevent our fellow citizens having recourse to the United Nations Human Rights Committee for alleged breaches of the covenant by the Government themselves?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I said, the review was announced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in March 2002. For good reason, its terms of reference were clear: to review the UK's position on international human rights instruments in the light of the experience of the operation of the Human Rights Act. We have had a process that has welcomed and involved representations from others. We have also been clear that the outcomes with the reasons will be made clear to Parliament. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for Parliament, no doubt through the usual mechanisms, to engage with the Government's decision in that respect.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the majority of rights in the ICCPR are already protected under the Human Rights Act. What important areas are not covered?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, without wishing to add fuel to the fire, as was said in May, I think, most of the covenant's rights and freedoms are protected also by the European Convention on Human Rights. To that extent the covenant adds nothing, as victims of breaches have effective remedies in British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. As he also said, in important respects the covenant is wider: it covers the guarantee of equality before the law and non-discrimination is freestanding.

The latter point means that if we signed up to this, an individual could make a petition to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on issues that are not within British law. That raises an interesting constitutional issue about the balance of the advantage or disadvantage in so doing. In practice, the lack of overlap is very narrow indeed. However, there are areas where the United Nations would allow access for issues which are not rights in the UK to be exercised or heard there.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the provisions of the European convention on discrimination are seriously defective? There is currently no freestanding anti-discrimination clause in the convention. In those cases in particular, there would therefore be considerable advantage, until the European convention is brought up to date, in giving the right of approach to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, those are some of the issues that the review, on which we are not yet able to announce a conclusion, explored; in other words, the extent to which
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1361
 
there are deficiencies in human rights protections in the United Kingdom. Our broad position is that, in the Human Rights Act, our citizens probably have some of the best human rights protections in the civilised world. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is correct that there is not a right at large to take discrimination action. However, it is also debatable whether a right to take discrimination action at large is always desirable. I can, for example, think of arguments about whether there should be a right to take discrimination action because one does not have access to a private Italian beach.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister answered my first question, which was whether it is right that we are in "unsplendid isolation" in Europe. Can he tell us what it is about the United Kingdom especially that makes us uniquely unable to accept the optional protocol?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page