moved Amendment No. 163:
163: Clause 170, page 121, line 38, at end insert ““and
(d) any premises in which medical, surgical or paramedical treatment is provided under arrangements made under the National Health Service Act 2006 (c. 41),””
The noble Lord said: We move now from the issues we were discussing a moment ago to the issue, raised in the Bill, of preventing assaults in hospital premises. Our amendment simply seeks to extend the protection given by Clause 170 to, "““any premises in which medical, surgical or paramedical treatment is provided under arrangements made under the National Health Service Act 2006””."
The question we are putting to the Minister is: why stop at hospital premises?
It is helpful to consider a survey carried out last year by the British Medical Association. Six hundred doctors responded to the survey on their experiences of violence in the workplace; doctors, not staff in hospitals. One-third had experienced some form of violence, including threats and verbal abuse. One in 10 had been physically attacked—including being stabbed, kicked, punched, bitten and spat at—of whom one in three had received minor injuries and one in 20 were seriously injured.
Another problem came to light—that violence towards doctors in their own surgeries is under-reported. Doctors do not like to report such violence to the authorities, particularly if it comes from a person accompanying a patient on their premises. The most frequently stated reasons for this violence were dissatisfaction with the service, including frustration with waiting times, and refusal to prescribe medication. Those are the two key issues: people waiting too long and not getting the medication they wanted. That had doubled as a cause of violence since the BMA’s previous survey in 2003.
Other findings from last year’s survey show that half of the doctors said that violence in the workplace is a problem; more than half had witnessed violence against other staff, such as nurses and receptionists; female doctors are more likely to experience violence in the workplace than males; junior doctors are more likely to experience violence, followed by GPs; and only one in 10 doctors has access to a secure facility in which to treat violent patients.
Like the BMA, we believe that it is simply unacceptable to permit any form of aggression towards healthcare workers. We support the basic concept behind Clause 170 but fail to see any rationale for limiting it as it has been. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has also tabled amendments to Clause 170. I wait to hear from her, but I can say to her now that we agree with her amendments. I beg to move.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 10 March 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c1313-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:58:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453385
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453385
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453385