Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 52:"Page 9, line 16, at end insert ““; and" ( ) non-NHS providers of health care”” The noble Baroness said: At last we arrive at the different subject of healthcare-acquired infection. I decline to say what is going through my mind at this point. It is good to have time for the Committee to address a serious issue. In moving this amendment, I will resist the temptation to make a lengthy Second Reading speech. This amendment, and many of those that follow, which we will discuss today comparatively quickly, stem from a doubt that I expressed at Second Reading: the inclusion of a code of practice in primary legislation would be the most effective way to deal with an important healthcare issue. The code of practice to which these provisions refer appears to apply only to the NHS and not directly to the independent sector. Last week, I listened to a very informative and fascinating programme on Radio 4 about healthcare-acquired infection. It was most interesting that in talking to medical practitioners, the programme started from one point. In the 1980s and early 1990s, healthcare-acquired infections such as MRSA were ignored. Since then, the NHS or healthcare systems in this country have tried, perhaps not that effectively, to catch up. We are now down to the last set of drugs which are effective in stemming MRSA. The healthcare professionals went on to say that if we are to control the incidence of healthcare-associated infection from now on, a comprehensive set of practices throughout the whole of healthcare would be required. That would simply stem the tide until new drugs are developed, which is unlikely to happen for several years. It is that thinking which has led me to table this amendment. From reports, we know that some of the more common infections exist in places such as nursing homes. We know that they are not confined either to acute hospitals or to the NHS. Through partial monitoring, we run the risk of having ineffective control. When this matter was debated in another place, some Members of that House tried to argue that the private sector is principally used for elective surgery, which it does in much smaller units than the NHS. But we know that the independent sector is increasingly used: indeed, the NHS now has targets for increased use of the independent sector. The difference in practice between the two sectors seems to be at odds with the difference in legislative practice. I understand that the then Health Minister, Jane Kennedy, cited the reason for the exclusion in this Bill; namely, that the Care Standards Act is the legislation under which the independent sector is regulated. Therefore, that is the legislation which would need to be deployed. When the matter was discussed in another place, Jane Kennedy referred to a consultation in the spring of 2006 and the implementation of new regulations under the Care Standards Act, which will be implemented in October of this year. Will the Minister update us on the state of play with that consultation? Even if one accepts that we have to use two forms of legislation, there needs to be synchronised and comprehensive action not just in the NHS but also across the independent sector. I beg to move.