www.policereform.gov.uk.

which patients needed to be assessed and possibly subsequently contacted, and

managing the possible risk to public health of those patients.

In the light of these assessments, the HPA is today initiating a process to notify relevant patients of these developments. The HPA is sending information to clinicians to enable them to trace particular plasma products. The clinicians will then notify any patients identified as "at risk" as a precaution. Any patients affected should expect to be contacted by clinicians later this month.

Aside from patients with haemophilia or other bleeding disorders, the other main group of patients who may have received significant amounts of affected blood products are patients with primary immunodeficiency (PID).

Throughout this exercise we have been concerned to ensure that the results of the risk assessment are communicated to patients by the clinicians responsible for their day-to-day care, so that appropriate supporting information can be provided. Further details about the risk assessment exercise will not be disclosed until after patients are informed of the outcome. I will make a further statement at a later date, if necessary.

"…even before the inquiry began many of the wider lessons had been learnt and change implemented".

The NHS has indeed been subject to considerable changes over the past few years, many having the specific aim of improving the patient experience, especially patient safety. But we are not complacent and we recognise the need for further improvements. The inquiry's conclusions and recommendations, together with those of the Clifford Ayling inquiry also published today, will help us to ensure that the patient experience is properly at the centre of our work in the NHS.

Many of the recommendations made by this inquiry are concerned with improvements in way that complaints are handled by the NHS. These include ensuring that patients have both sufficient and correct information about their treatment to inform their decisions as well as strengthening the role of the Patient Advisory Liaison Service (PALS) to support patients who have concerns, and some of this work is already underway. Issues around complaints are also being considered by the Shipman inquiry, which is likely to produce recommendations in its Fifth Report due later this year. They are also being considered by the William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiry, whose report is also expected later this year. We will therefore consider these recommendations together with those of the Shipman, Clifford Ayling and William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiries and give a detailed response in due course.

In the meantime, the Government will consider very carefully the other recommendations concerning the appointment and employment of consultants and doctors in other grades, as well as the role of the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (now known as the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence), and will respond to these as soon as we can.

We have made clear that patient safety is a priority and the UK has led the way in pushing forward in this area. Tomorrow, I will be talking to fellow EU health ministers about the lessons EU members can learn from one another and make clear that patient safety will be a key issue during the UK presidency of the EU next year.

This inquiry has provided a valuable insight into a series of errors over a long period of time in the appointment processes and in Richard Neale's employment performance. It has painstakingly identified the causes of those errors and has made helpful recommendations about how best to avoid repeating them. We will review the improvements we have made in the past few years to ensure that they address the concerns raised in the report. The Government are grateful to all those whose contributions to the review will help us fulfil our commitment to patient safety.

"The impact of the Government's plans and investment in health services has dramatically altered the landscape of the NHS. At an organisational level, it is almost unrecognisable as the NHS in which Ayling practised. The emphasis on patient safety, remedial action for poor clinical performance, closer scrutiny of untoward events and empowering patients in the management of services are greatly welcomed."

The changes introduced in recent years have already sought to address the weaknesses found by the inquiry as being a cause for concern. For this reason the inquiry has directed its recommendations towards strengthening the systems now in place rather than offering new or alternative proposals for action.

The Government welcome the recommendations in the report which include proposals both to address the issue of sexualised behaviour and to ensure that guidance is available for dealing with it; and that all trusts and primary care practices should have an explicit policy on the use of chaperones. These are important issues that will require detailed consideration if changes are to be implemented effectively. Likewise, the role of patient advocacy when dealing with 'sexualised behaviour' in both the hospital and the primary care setting will also require further detailed consideration.

The report acknowledges that considerable changes have already been made. These include substantial changes to the NHS complaints procedure and the current development of guidance to trusts on how to handle untoward incidents. Further changes are in hand and planned.

It recommends improvements to the recording of complaints against individual practitioners and the importance of co-ordinating complaints, coupled with the need to ensure that employers are aware of other employment being undertaken by their medical staff.

Other recommendations include requiring staff of NHS trusts and other healthcare organisations employing staff, such as deputising services, to declare concurrent employment and for this requirement to be suitably adapted to ensure that PCTs are kept informed of other professional work undertaken by GPs; the provision of better support for single-handed practitioners and their practice managers; and clarification of the roles of the respective professional and local bodies in primary care.

The Department of Health is also asked to develop a memorandum of understanding with professional regulatory bodies and the Crown Prosecution Service; and to work with strategic health authorities to provide guidance to trusts on handling untoward incidents.

Issues around complaints are also being considered by the Shipman inquiry, which is likely to produce recommendations in its fifth report due later this year. They are also being considered by the William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiry whose report is also expected later this year. We will therefore consider these recommendations together with those of the Shipman, Neale and William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiries and give a detailed response in due course.

The Department of Health is asked to take account of the inquiry's recommendations in the development of its current work on a memorandum of understanding with the NHS, the police and the Health and Safety Executive. We shall of course ensure that the report and its recommendations are brought to the attention of the project board taking this work forward. As part of this work, guidance is currently being developed for the NHS including a strategy for involving patients and others.

Our purpose in setting up this inquiry, as with all investigations of errors in the NHS, is to learn the lessons and put in place procedures to minimise the risk of similar errors occurring in the future. As already indicated, much work has already been done and further work is in hand. We very much welcome this report and its recommendations, and those of the Richard Neale inquiry also published today, with their emphasis on putting patients at the centre of health care. These reports will provide an important contribution to a continuing process of improvement.

We have made clear that patient safety is a priority and the UK has led the way in pushing forward in this area. Tomorrow, I will be talking to fellow EU health ministers about the lessons EU members can learn from one another and make clear that patient safety will be a key issue during the UK presidency of the EU next year.

It is completely unacceptable that the events described in this report were allowed to happen. In acting on the inquiry's recommendations we will be guided by the need to prevent future patients having to suffer in the same way as many patients of Clifford Ayling.

"in accordance with the Cologne conclusions, the question of the charter's force would be considered later"—

conclusions of the Nice European Council reference 00/1843, deposited in the Library of the House on 11 December 2000. Her Majesty's Government made it clear that we could not agree to incorporation of the charter into the treaties without further legal clarification of its meaning and application. In the White Paper "A Constitutional Treaty for the EU", Cm 5934 of September 2003, Her Majesty's Government said we would make a final decision on incorporation of the charter into the constitutional treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC.

The charter, including its original preamble, and its own special rules of application and interpretation, is now part II of the constitutional treaty, and is introduced by article I-7(1) of the treaty. Article I-7 deals with fundamental rights generally. Besides introducing the charter, article I-7(1) acknowledges the distinction made in the charter between rights and principles. Human rights and other fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and in the constitutional traditions common to all the member states remain general principles of EU law (see article I-7(3)) and insofar as the charter affirms such rights, they will be interpreted in accordance with the ECHR. Article I-7(2) enables the Union to accede to the ECHR in its own right.

Significant amendments have been made to articles II-51 and II-52 in title VII of the charter, now entitled "General Provisions Governing the Interpretation and Application of the Charter". The charter applies to the Union—its institutions, agencies and bodies—and, though only when they are implementing Union law, to the member states. Paragraph (1) of article II-51 has been further clarified to show that the charter does not entail any extension of the Union's competences or any extension of the scope of its application for member states. Paragraph (2) of article II-51 also confirms that the charter does not have the effect of extending the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union as established in the other parts of the constitutional treaty.

Article II-52 deals with interpretation, and significantly improves the original charter provisions. It indicates that there are four sources for the content of the charter's rights, freedoms and principles: provisions of EU law, the ECHR, the constitutional traditions common to the member states and national law. Under article II-52(2), charter articles based on existing EU law are to be read subject to the conditions and limits set out in the constitutional treaty; that is, they are effectively subordinated to their legal base in other parts of the constitution. Under article II-52(3), rights in the charter that correspond to rights in the ECHR have the same meaning and scope as given by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. Article I-7(2) on EU accession to the ECHR will help ensure consistency of jurisprudence as between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

Under article II-52(4), those charter provisions which draw upon the common constitutional traditions of the member states must be interpreted "in harmony" with such traditions.

Article II-52(6) emphasises the respect to be given to "national laws and practices", as referred to in the charter provisions.

Article II-52(5) is aimed at clarifying the distinction the charter makes between legally enforceable rights on the one hand, and the principles, of an aspirational nature, on the other, which are to be found mainly in the solidarity title of the charter. Principles are designed to guide the actions of the Union institutions, and of the member states when implementing Union law. The Union must observe principles by virtue of article II-51(1) when deciding whether to exercise its competences; but there is no obligation to legislate, and the charter itself generates no additional powers to do so. Principles apply within the limitations set out in article II-51(2).

Finally, a further new horizontal article, article II-52(7), has been added to the constitutional treaty. Article II-52(7) requires the charter to be interpreted with due regard to the official explanations, which address the legal bases for each of the charter's provisions. The explanations have been updated and strengthened and are the subject of a special declaration by the member states which ensures that they are published with the new treaty. The official explanations constitute an authoritative guide to the legal meaning of the charter's provisions and will help ensure that the charter is not misinterpreted.
Whether incorporation of the European Union charter of fundamental rights into the treaties will increase the powers of the European Union

Incorporation of the European Union charter of fundamental rights into the treaties will not increase the powers of the European Union. The charter of fundamental rights must be read as a whole, including the general provisions governing the interpretation and application of the charter, as set out in articles II-51 to 53 of the charter. Article II-51(2) provides that the charter does not extend the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the other parts of the constitutional treaty.
The benefits to the United Kingdom of the European Union charter of fundamental rights

Although fundamental rights, freedoms and principles are guaranteed by the Governments of the member states in accordance with national law, there was no statement of rights, etc. binding the European Union. The charter sets out such a statement for the Union. Following incorporation of the charter, the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union will be bound to recognise those rights, etc. in exercising any of their powers. The charter should help ensure that citizens' basic rights and liberties are protected at EU level, as they are in their own countries.
The effect of Article H-28 of the charter of fundamental rights upon the laws governing industrial relations in the United Kingdom

In practice, article II-28 of the charter of fundamental rights will have no effect upon the laws governing industrial relations in the United Kingdom. Article II-28 states that workers and employers enjoy rights of collective bargaining and action

"in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices".

There is no Union law in this area, nor could there be in future. EU action on pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lock-outs is

specifically excluded—see article III-104(6) of the constitutional treaty. Charter article II-52(6) provides that full account should be taken of national laws and practices as specified in the charter. As with all the charter provisions, and by virtue of article II-52(7), it is important to read article II-28 alongside the official explanation, which in this instance points out that

"The modalities and limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices".

The United Kingdom's laws governing industrial relations maintain a balance between workers' rights to pursue legitimate trade disputes and employers' rights to conduct their businesses without undue disruption from illegitimate strike action. Article II-28 will not alter that balance.