---

Health Care-Associated Infections

I recall the occasion that my hon. Friend mentions, and also his Adjournment debate on the subject. The Government said nothing about C. difficile and, when we challenged them about what they would do, it was obvious that they had targeted MRSA and that C. difficile rates had risen because of lack of action on, for example, hand washing. They said that they did not believe that it was right to have a national target; a central target was wrong. They claimed that the targets had to be local because there was such local variation in C. difficile. Ten months later, the Secretary of State came to the House to say that central targets were essential. The Government have no comprehensive strategy and cannot even manage, in the space of a year, to maintain a consistent policy. The Conservative party has a strategy and a policy, which we would be prepared to pursue. The amendment states that"““healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are a worldwide problem””." Indeed, they are. However, a Europe-wide survey shows that places such as Denmark and the Netherlands have succeeded with MRSA where we have failed. Even the French and the Slovenians have moved substantially in the right direction, whereas, according to the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Survey, we are moving in the wrong direction. The Government had a policy of ““bare below the elbows””. That is good, but their document states that"““it seems unlikely that uniforms are a significant source of cross-infection.””" They have a ““deep clean”” policy, but a press release that the Department published in September claimed that trusts were, in any case, conducting a deep clean on a ward-by-ward basis. Although the Prime Minister announced the policy, we found that no follow-up or evaluation was intended, and that it is only now that the Department is trying to put in place some structure for deep cleaning. Yet in 2000 the NHS plan pledged"““a nation-wide clean-up campaign throughout the NHS starting immediately””." The right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) said in 2001:"““This extra money will help get the basics right. It will drive forward the biggest clean-up campaign there has ever been in NHS hospitals.””" The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) said in 2004, when he was Secretary of State:"No stone is being left unturned in the battle against the superbug. We are improving cleaning standards, rolling out cleanyourhands and making sure infection control is a fully staffed priority for every NHS trust””." He said that approximately two months before the outbreak at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells began, in circumstances in which nursing staff were not capable of delivering that priority. We are told that there are to be 3,000 extra matrons. What is the evidence base for that decision? How long was it in gestation? Where is the consultation document for the Royal College of Nursing to consider its appropriateness? Why a matron for every two wards—why not a matron for every three or four wards? Where did that policy originate? Is it a case of what The Lancet described as"““Politicians…pandering to populism about hospital cleanliness””" and not listening to the evidence? The Government claim that they want targets, but 45 per cent. of trusts said that they had difficulty reconciling the targets for accident and emergency attendance with those for hospital-acquired infection. The amendment is too little, too late. The Government say that targets are essential, yet they get in the way of NHS staff doing what they need to do. We need a strategic approach, the resources to help NHS staff achieve the goal and time for change. I commend the motion to the House.