|
Miss Johnson: I will not give way on that point, because I do not think that there is anything more that I need to say.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke about subsections (2) to (4). Under subsection (2)(a) the Secretary of State can direct the agency to exercise administrative and other functions that might otherwise be carried out by the Department of Health. He must act reasonably, which means that the functions should be of a similar nature to those of other health functions that the agency has—in particular, as described in clause 4. However, giving such functions to the agency is consistent with the policy that the Department should perform only those functions that it can do best. I am sure that that is a principle of subsidiarity and devolution with which the hon. Gentleman would find it difficult to disagree.
As an illustration of the way in which the power might be used, the Secretary of State would be likely to use it to transfer to the agency the administrative task of designating yellow fever vaccination centres, which
Column Number: 066
would be carried out in accordance with the international health regulations of the World Health Organisation. Obviously, the provision could be more widely construed, and I think that that was the point that the hon. Gentleman was raising.
The hon. Member for Newark commented on the more creative forms of terrorism, as it were, and the threats that we face. Obviously we must all be alert to those possibilities and I share his concerns about them. I do not have any information about the detailed nature of terrorist threats. He may know something that I do not. As I said earlier, our approach to dealing with the threat is that several different bodies and organisations, including the Home Office and the police, as well as the HPA, need to be involved in giving advice and training and making provision for any such eventuality, in so far as it is possible to plan for it. We must think ahead and try to plan for what is, at the moment, at the outer boundaries of what we can foresee. I am sure that the plans are taken seriously by all the bodies concerned.
Patrick Mercer: The Minister mentioned the provision of training. Does she foresee that as being the training of officials inside agencies and organisations or more general training of the population?
Miss Johnson: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, training takes many forms. It may mean equipping people with specialist skills, or it may be connected with particular emergency planning events. It may be other things. The agency will play an appropriate role in those contexts. Again, several other significant players will have a major role to play in such exercises and such provision. It would not be right to try to specify the precise role of the agency.
I think that Opposition Members are frustrated because we are not here to talk about the details of the HPA's engagement in this matter, but to talk about the frameworks that the Bill is setting up to enable the HPA to do the detailed work. I understand their frustrations, but it is not for me to go into the details of matters that are not—and in our view should not be—provided for in the Bill.
Patrick Mercer: I take the Minister's point. In any Bill Committee, similar arguments are deployed by both sides. However, there surely needs to be enough precision and detail—although not excessive detail. For example, the point that we were discussing earlier about protective clothing clearly should not be on the face of the Bill. However, I disagree strongly with the Minister; the Bill must not be bland. It must be precise enough to direct the agency and to reassure other agencies that their work will be conducted in the correct way and channelled in the correct fashion.
Miss Johnson: I contend that the Bill is by no means bland, and I have done so strongly this afternoon and this morning. It is enormously productive and offers many opportunities for better working and better linking between the various areas of risk and threat than has ever been afforded by any other organisation or arrangement. Indeed, the HPA is already strongly taking forward almost all those strands of work, even involving early work with the National Radiological
Column Number: 067
Protection Board and preparation for what it hopes will be the outcome of our deliberations in due course.
All those things are in place, and I believe that the Bill contains exactly the right amount of detail. I have to beg to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have answered his points as best I can. I think that his frustration rests on the fact that he would like something on the face of the Bill, which we think would be entirely inappropriate. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Radiation protection functions
Dr. Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out 'such of'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 10, in
clause 3, page 2, line 42, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 43.
Dr. Murrison: Having said that we were dealing with the engine room of the Bill in clause 2, I have to say that we have now reached an equally important point with clause 3. One of the stated objectives of the HPA is to amalgamate the current special health authority with the radiological protection service to form the agency. That is clearly stated, and clause 3 carries it out.
I have a certain interest in this issue, which I shall describe when we debate clause stand part rather than at this juncture. However, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are quite straightforward. They do not presume to cherry-pick the functions of the current National Radiological Protection Board for incorporation within the agency. That is what comes across from clause 3(2). In essence, I propose that the whole of the current functions of the NRPB should be transferred to the agency.
The Minister has plenty of powers subsequently to tweak that. It may well be that, in the fullness of time, Ministers will feel that the functions of the NRPB, as amalgamated in the agency, need to be enhanced or reduced. It will be well within their competence to do that. I am intrigued as to why, at this stage, functions should be shifted piecemeal from the NRPB to the agency. The Minister will be aware that there is disquiet in the NRPB at an individual level about what the future holds. If the functions are not to be transferred wholesale to the agency, those anxieties will be heightened.
The amendment is reasonable. I suspect that it will not really affect the functions carried out by the agency in terms of radiological protection. However, while we are trying to decide exactly what those functions will be, it seems sensible to transfer the whole of the NRPB to the agency. In an evolutionary way, we can then decide which of those functions need to be maintained and which enhanced. In essence, that
Column Number: 068
is what I propose through these two amendments. I hope that the Minister will consider them carefully.
4.15 pm
Miss Johnson: The amendments would require all the functions exercisable by the NRPB at the date of commencement to be transferred automatically to the agency. Therefore, the appropriate authority would lose its discretion to decide whether the agency was a suitable home for the functions concerned both now and in the future. There would be no requirement to consult appropriate authorities. There would be no provision allowing the transfer to be revoked and the agency would have to carry out those functions until such time as the primary legislation was changed.
I do not think that is what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I recognise the issues he is raising, but his amendment would not achieve the effect that he seeks. We will therefore not accept the amendment. The sentiment behind it is that the presumption should be that the functions that the NRPB currently carries out should transfer automatically to the agency. The Government share that general presumption, as the approach that we have taken in subsection (1) makes clear.
However, the functions on which we envisage issuing a direction under subsection (2) are different. They are not the functions given to the NRPB by the Radiological Protection Act 1970 or a core part of its business that could not be removed from it or from any successor body without compromising its independence or effectiveness. They are the administrative functions, which, over the years, it has been found convenient to have the NRPB, rather than the Department of Health, perform.
Some of the responses to the 2002 consultation paper were concerned that the agency should take these functions over from the NRPB. Subsection (2) allows for that to happen. That is probably not the hon. Gentleman's understanding, which is why he is looking so bemused by this. We have no wish to pursue the alternative of returning the functions to the Department of Health. That would be inconsistent with our view that the Department of Health should not perform functions that can be done better elsewhere.
Dr. Murrison: I think that the Minister is reassuring me. Just to be clear, is it her intention to transfer the NRPB wholesale, as it stands, to the agency?
Miss Johnson: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Could he repeat the question?
Dr. Murrison: I will certainly do so. This is as much for the benefit of the employees of the NRPB as anyone else. Is it the Minister's intention to transfer the NRPB, as it currently stands, wholesale to the agency? If not, perhaps she could tell us which parts she is looking at.
Miss Johnson: We are looking to deal with the administrative functions. Subsection (2) allows for the appropriate authority to direct the agency to take responsibility for functions that are carried out at the date of commencement by the NRPB. We explained in our memorandum to the House of Lords Delegated
Column Number: 069
Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the NRPB currently provides a secretariat for one advisory non-Departmental public body, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, and a support unit for another, the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee.
Our intention is to use this power to direct the agency to take over those functions, thereby ensuring continuity. This is not about what will transfer within the existing curtilage of the principal role and core functions of the NRPB, but the additional things that need to go across. That is why the amendment would not have the desired effect. That is why I reassured him that we share the general presumption that the functions that the NRPB currently carries out should transfer to the agency automatically. That is not what the clause is about. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
| 
