|
Miss Johnson: The point is that the HPA can appoint in future. Under the present arrangements, the
Column Number: 032
PCTs make such appointments on behalf of the Department. As I said, the HPA—initially as a special health authority and subsequently as the agency—will delegate appointments, whereas the National Assembly for Wales will do so in Wales.
Dr. Murrison: I am sorry to press this point, but it strikes me as important. I am glad that I asked about schedules 3 and 4, which could well have passed us by, as I said in my initial remarks. Is the Minister saying that the function will be more devolved? Many of us think that we should get a grip of such matters, and we welcome the agency because difficult and sensitive issues such as TB and HIV are being gripped centrally as part of a countrywide approach. The medical inspectorate is fundamental to that approach.
In general, we like to devolve things, and we like things to happen locally, but the Bill raises public health issues, which must be gripped and dealt with centrally. From what the Minister is saying, we seem to be moving in the wrong direction, with the agency devolving responsibility for the inspectorate. The inspectorate brings together a group of professionals who have not traditionally enjoyed the status and resources that they deserve. Unless I have got it wrong, the Minister is proposing to devolve responsibility for the inspectorate to a more local level. Indeed, the HPA might even surrender responsibilities for the service in some respects. If that is the direction of travel, we would be very concerned.
Miss Johnson: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I can be clearer. At present, once a medical inspector is identified locally—the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the possible arrangements—people must write to the Department of Health to obtain the Secretary of State's clearance for the appointment. In future, they will have to go to the agency, which, the hon. Gentleman will agree, will be better placed to deal with such issues, given its detailed oversight and understanding of what is needed, than the Department. It will certainly be the most appropriate body to take the issue forward. If he would like me to write to him about the appointment of medical inspectors, however, I shall be happy to do so before Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 12
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr. Murrison: This is quite a complicated clause, which contains technical language. I hope that the Minister will talk a bit about it and not let it pass by without comment. Reference is made—in the explanatory notes, at least—to the appointment of medical inspectors under the Immigration Act, and I would be grateful if the Minister could talk us through
Column Number: 033
how the clause will affect the immigration service, and particularly the medical inspectorate.
Miss Johnson: On that specific point—I have a lot of detail on other points, but I shall not go through them, because the hon. Gentleman did not raise them—subsection (3) provides for one of the changes proposed in schedule 3 to come into effect two months after Royal Assent. That will enable the Secretary of State to delegate the appointment of medical inspectors under the Immigration Act to the National Assembly for Wales or the Health Protection Agency special health authority and, subsequently, the agency established by the Bill. The purpose is simply to take forward the arrangements that we discussed under schedule 3 for changing who will agree to the appointments of those identified for posts.
Subsections (1) and (2) provide for the Bill's remaining provisions to be brought into effect by order made by statutory instrument on such day or days that the Secretary of State may appoint, subject to prior consultation with those specified in subsection (4). They are standard provisions for commencement for which no parliamentary procedure is specified. Our aim is that the agency should come into being on 1 April 2005.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
11 am
Clause 13
Short title
Miss Johnson: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
clause 13, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
This is a technical amendment, which, as the note on page 1 of the Bill states, was inserted by the Lords to ''avoid questions of privilege'', and which it is necessary to remove. The procedure is purely technical.
Dr. Murrison: The Minister has commented only briefly. Perhaps I am being particularly dim today, but I think that she is addressing Government amendment No. 7, which amends clause 13.
Miss Johnson: There is only one Government amendment.
Dr. Murrison: The Minister is quite right, but she has not really explained the purpose of the amendment, and her intentions are not clear. I think that it touches on finance, which is important. [Interruption.]
I am sorry if the Minister finds this amusing—
Miss Johnson: I do not find it amusing.
Dr. Murrison: This is important, particularly in the context of money. We have clarified one thing today: the finance for this Bill is extremely uncertain. We will definitely return to that issue. If the Minister can clarify things at this stage, she will save herself a lot of time later.
Miss Johnson: I was not smiling at the hon. Gentleman's remarks; he need not be so sensitive. I
Column Number: 034
trust that my explanation will give him a little more confidence.
This is a technical amendment concerning a matter of privilege. Their lordships do not have powers to make comments or resolutions about money, so they have to insert such a technical measure in order to be able to deal with the question of privilege. It is entirely normal for us to remove it having noted that what they say does not indicate anything financial. It is what their lordships are supposed to do to indicate that they have no powers to make financial provisions—just as they do not debate Finance Bills. That is all part of the same principle. They have recognised that principle by inserting subsection (2), and we have proposed a Government amendment to remove it. There is nothing particularly exciting about money here.
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is free to pursue this trail but, as I said in speaking to paragraph 19 of schedule 1, there are no interesting questions about funding. We envisage things carrying on as before. I have attempted to address his points and, to be fair, I think that I have answered them fully. I regret to inform him that there is nothing of any excitement in this respect.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Dr. Murrison: I do not want to labour the point, but it is important that members of the Committee, particularly Opposition Front Benchers, are clear about the Government's intentions. I am happy to admit to being extremely dim sometimes, and perhaps the fault lies with me, but I do not understand what subsection (2) is intended to achieve, or why Government amendment No. 7 is needed.
The Chairman: Order. It was a purely technical amendment about money; we cannot now have a debate on its substance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Health functions
Dr. Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out 'infectious disease and other'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 1, in
Amendment No. 4, in
Dr. Murrison: This is an important part of the Bill, and we can afford to be expansive about it, given that we have rattled through the previous provisions at a rate of knots. We have done so because the Bill is not
Column Number: 035
controversial; we fully appreciate the need for it. However, it is our function to delve into the detail, both here and on Report, and we have identified matters that will most certainly need to be considered on Report. In general, the Bill is okay in its intentions; we support the amalgamation into the agency of the National Radiological Protection Board and the special health authority. That will be positive, despite concerns about how the NRPB feels about certain aspects of that, on which we shall no doubt touch later.
The clause drives at the heart of the Bill. It has to do with the purpose of the HPA. Why do we need the Health Protection Agency? What will be gained by combining the NRPB with the special health authority? What will that synergy lend to it? There needs to be some added value. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said on Second Reading that if we continue to combine more and more things, ultimately everything in the Department of Health will merge—and what would be the point of that? Merging things is all well and good. It is a truism these days that amalgamation is good because it makes bodies co-operate better, but often that does not bear close inspection.
It would be helpful if the Minister laid out precisely how the functions of the constituent parts of the HPA will be enhanced. To be fair, she has touched on that, and it was mentioned on Second Reading. However, I am not as clear as I would like to be that the constituent parts of the HPA will function any better in an amalgamated body. To be honest, if we are not improving things, we might as well not have the Bill. I hark back to the remarks of my hon. Friend. They were not addressed; we did not get a clear account of how the functions of the HPA would be enhanced. The clause deals with those functions, and it is important that the Minister lays out how she and her right hon. and hon. Friends believe that their Bill will protect and improve public health.
It is also important that the Minister be absolutely clear in her mind about what the HPA will do; I have to say that I am not clear in mine. I understood initially that it was set up to address the novel threats faced by this country. We live in a sad old world in which—if the Prime Minister is to be believed—there is a terrorist at every turn and we are in imminent danger of attack. If that is the case, we need to protect against it. The HPA was set up to address such threats and novel diseases—the Minister helpfully referred to one of them in correspondence on the Human Tissue Bill. Those threats are obviously on the increase, and will probably continue to grow. I understood that the agency would address those threats specifically. We now find, however, that it might also have other functions that might augment the Government's public health effort. I make no comment about that.
|
