| Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]
|
|
Miss Johnson: My point referred to the document in question, not to anything else. Mr. Francois: I understand what the Minister was saying. She was perhaps sceptical, perhaps for her own reasons, about what was included in that booklet. We do not need to go round that lap four times this afternoon. Nevertheless, it was not terribly long ago that this country lived under the threat of a direct nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. Even today, the Russian Federation possesses nuclear weapons. We are not entirely out of the woods, although much of what we have concentrated on today relates to the possibility of a terrorist organisation obtaining a nuclear weapon. It may be a classic nuclear weapon, or a so-called mixed device, usually referred to in tabloid parlance as a ''dirty bomb''. These issues are still germane. I sense that, on occasion, the Minister has suspected that the Opposition are crying wolf or seeking to overdo this. In defence of our argument, I would pray in aid the Intelligence and Security Committee's annual report for 2003–04, Cm 6240, which was published only today. On page 7, in a section headed ''The Threat'', it quotes the Prime Minister. That quotation bears brief repetition in this context. He said:
Column Number: 063
The Chairman: Order. Notwithstanding the undoubted military and intelligence credentials of Opposition Members and the Prime Minister's words, I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks directly to the clause stand part debate. Mr. Francois: I shall be delighted to do so. Again, I do not mean to misrepresent the Minister, but I quoted the Prime Minister, which I confess I do not usually do at the drop of a hat, because I believe that the Minister might have thought that we were over-egging the pudding in some respects. I assure her that we are not. I was seeking to pray in aid the Prime Minister, who obviously believes, as I do, that these issues are very important. The Minister might not agree with us, but she can take the matter up with the Prime Minister if she so wishes. Finally, in our argument about the ''Protect and Survive'' campaign and whether there should be a more modern version of that for the current situation, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury correctly reminded the Committee that a whole range of televisions broadcasts had also been prepared, some of which were subsequently aired in the arguments about that campaign. The point is that the broadcasts had already been filmed and were ready to be aired in the event of an emergency. It would take a long time to produce those broadcasts if they were not already ready to go. It is one thing to give out a one-line radio message, but such a message needs to be backed up by something else that will not be available if it has not been produced in advance. We should therefore have prepared television broadcasts that align with the booklet and that could be broadcast in the event of an emergency. In fairness, the Minister pointed out that there is a broad power under clause 4 that would give the HPA the ability to produce such broadcasts. We have sought a commitment from the Minister that it would be prepared to consider the possibility seriously. It obviously has the power to do so, but we are pushing the Minister on its intent to do so as opposed to its ability. I hope that she will be able to tell us today or on Report that she intends to respond positively, so that we can provide people with information to deal with the most catastrophic events. Mr. Burstow: I welcome you to the Chair for this afternoon's sitting, Mr. Forth. In his summary of our debate on the two amendments, the hon. Member for Westbury said that he had deduced from exchanges between the Minister and hon. Members that the Government's intention was to focus primarily on the control of infectious disease and one or two other aspects, particularly chemicals. I am paraphrasing his remarks, and I am sure that he will correct me later if he checks the record and finds that I have missed Column Number: 064 something. However, what struck me most was that he seemed to deduce from what the Minister said that lifestyle and its effects on health were not likely to be part of the HPA's agenda. In the Minister's response to the debate on the amendments, she suggested that the clause does provide for a wider role in promoting health. I was grateful for that useful clarification.The hon. Member for Westbury also referred to subsections (2) to (4), which deal with directing the agency to take on other functions in relation to health. The explanatory notes say that these provisions are included to provide future flexibility. Will the Minister say how widely that power is drawn? How much flexibility could it give? Would it, for example, enable the HPA to take on a remit similar to that of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, which clearly goes beyond the realms of surveillance and health protection—the functions that the Bill confers on the HPA? Does it allow for issues such as lifestyle to become part of its remit, too? Could she respond to those points, so that we can be clear how wide the parameters might be if the Government were minded to exercise those powers?
4 pmPatrick Mercer: I listened to the Minister during our debate on the amendments, and many of her points addressed the difficulties that we raised. However, I am still unconvinced that the Government fully understand the integration between the Health Protection Agency and the more conventional agencies that are flourishing as part of the homeland security agenda. It seriously worries me that the sort of attacks that there have been in the past will change and, according to reliable intelligence, enemy agents will start to use a completely different style of attack, which may not be as obvious as an explosive or contact poison attack. For example, it will be something like smallpox, which may take weeks or months to develop, and could be absolutely devastating to the population. It could also be very difficult to assess whether such an attack arose from a natural cause or was the result of action by terrorists. That is why I found the Government's earlier efforts to warn the population in advance about what is going on slightly disingenuous. An interesting leak appeared about a month or so ago in The Sunday Times, which published in draft form the Government's forthcoming document, which we believe that they intend to send to every household. Much of the advice in that pamphlet was extremely useful and helpful; I have no doubt that there are holes in it, as there are in any such work, which cannot be perfect. However, I do not criticise it for that. If that newspaper report was correct and that is the course of action that the Government are following, it was clear that the Health Protection Agency had not been a large contributor to the document. My point is therefore simple: I believe that our enemies will increasingly use asymmetric, imaginative and technical styles of attack, and we may not even know whether we have been attacked by terrorists or not. That is the bailiwick of the Health Protection Agency. I absolutely take the Minister's point about clause 4. Column Number: 065 Dr. Murrison: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend in mid flow. He said that the HPA probably had not contributed very much to the document to which he referred. I received a pamphlet in my mailbag this lunchtime from the Royal College of General Practitioners, entitled ''Major Incidents and Disasters—the role of the GP and the primary health care team'', which, from my cursory examination of it, also appears not to mention the HPA. Does he share my concern that the HPA does not seem to be having much of an impact? Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As usual, he is one step ahead of me. I have not seen the document to which he referred, but it appals and disappoints me that the Health Protection Agency is not mentioned in it. I reiterate that the HPA did not feature in the leaked document. Therefore, I simply want matters with reference to the agency to be spelt out under the clause—both on the contingency planning that will be carried out and on informing the public about the threat and how to mitigate it. I understand that the Minister faces the difficult prospect of warning people without scaring the pants off them. It is a difficult line to tread. None the less, I should have liked the clause to provide for something more specific, which would be more helpful in mitigating the sorts of disasters that we are likely to face. Miss Johnson: It is a pleasure to respond to the points that have been made. As to the comments of the hon. Member for Rayleigh on amendments, the Government do not intend on the basis of what we have heard so far to table any amendments on Report. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that the Bill has benefited from scrutiny in another place. That is not to say that we should not be giving it full scrutiny here, too, but the Government have responded to a number of the amendments that were made in the other place. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's fear—or anticipation—will, either way, meet with deep frustration. Dr. Murrison: Will the Minister give way?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 29 June 2004 |
