| Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]
|
|
Dr. Murrison: I should just like to be clear. COMARE and its secretariat have functions that are currently supported by the NRPB. Will it be transferred? Miss Johnson: It will transfer. The clause enables that extra part to transfer, but it does not alter the major transfer. I hope that that clarifies the point so that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. Dr. Murrison: I think that the Minister has reassured me. The issue is evidently quite complicated, because the NRPB is quite a complicated organisation. It supports a number of other, smaller bodies, some of which the Minister mentioned. My concern is for the board's functions, particularly at this difficult time, with the review of arm's length bodies next month. Everything is in a state of flux for the bodies in question. That is my pre-eminent concern, but I am also concerned for those loyal and dedicated people who support such an excellent organisation. They will take note of the Minister's remarks and draw comfort from them about their future. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Patrick Mercer: Clause 3 forms perhaps not the guts of the Bill, but certainly an extremely important organ in terms of homeland security, at least as far as I am concerned. It is worth thinking about how much radiological material has gone missing, particularly from countries of the former Soviet Union and Indonesia, for instance, and about how much material—albeit of medical rather than military grade—has been lost in the west. I am no expert on how to turn low-grade radiological material into higher, weapons-grade material, but I believe that it is possible. There is also little doubt that organisations exist that are particularly keen to get their hands on radiological material, not necessarily to make a formal bomb but Column Number: 070 to make a dirty device, to which our societies in the west would be particularly vulnerable.It was interesting that the OSIRIS II exercise last September, of which I have been deeply critical in public, chose to look at the probable use of a dirty bomb in one of London's tubes. Although that exercise had many faults, it was nonetheless well intentioned. It revolved around the threat of a relatively small quantity of explosives being used to spread a relatively small but highly lethal amount of radiation around the scene of the incident. Of particular interest to me, therefore, is subsection (1)(b), which refers to
You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Forth, that I do not wish to go over the arguments that we rehearsed in the debate on clause 2, but the arguments on clause 3 are precisely the same, albeit in a much narrower field—namely the threat of radiological weaponry. Because of what we have heard about danger of radiation and about the NRPB being amalgamated and wound up, I seek reassurance from the Minister that the provision of
is going to be taken seriously. I should like to be reassured that some sort of osmosis is not being hoped for, and that the honest burghers of my constituency and those of every other member of the Committee will not come to learn about such matters by accident or by rumour. Again, although the Government must risk being accused of crying wolf or spreading panic needlessly, they must also take the threat sufficiently seriously to start informing people and preparing them for the manifestation of exactly such a threat. There is little doubt that such weapons will be used if our enemies can get their hands on them, or that—unlike those who use substances such as ricin and sarin, which are quite difficult to deploy—anyone who has the kit and the means to make a device can put together a nasty and lethal bang relatively easily. I seek the Minister's assurance that the bland statement in clause 3 actually means that we shall have some sort of manifestation of information to prepare people for that type of attack, just as the Australian population have been prepared, albeit on the back of a conventional attack in Bali. A few months ago, if we had asked the average Australian, ''How much do you know about the radiological threat to your country?'', the answer would, I guess, have been ''Almost nothing.'' As a result of the measures that the Government there have taken through their equivalent of the HPA, every single Australian who can be bothered or is motivated to read the information that has been given to him or her, or to watch the television and film advertisements that have been made, is better informed. Dr. Murrison: My hon. Friend hopes that those who are motivated or can be bothered will take note of their Government's advice. Does he agree that one of the skills of the agency should be communication? Perhaps an educational function should be included in Column Number: 071 the Bill. Those who cannot be bothered and who are not motivated are the most likely to act inappropriately in the event of an incident. How do we get to them?Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. It is interesting that the Australians have used some extremely innovative means to overcome precisely that sort of problem. Not least of those is the fact that they have put the information that people need in order to understand that they might be subject to radiation poisoning onto fridge magnets. Anybody who cares to put it there can stick it at head height on the fridge and can pick up the facts. That is not very sophisticated, but have we thought of anything like it? I suspect that the answer is absolutely not. I would like a reassurance from the Minister that such measures will be put in place. Mr. Burstow: I rise to ask a couple of questions in the hope that we might return to the answers on Thursday. In her response to this debate, will the Minister talk us through the way in which clause 3(3) and 3(6) interact with clause 6(5)? My concern is that clause 3 provides for a new power of direction in respect of functions that are described in the explanatory notes in terms of the Radiological Protection Act 1970. I am not clear about the mechanism for consultation. Clause 3(6) says:
Clause 6 lists a number of persons and bodies as appropriate authorities—Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales and the relevant people in Northern Ireland. Clause 6(5) concludes by stating that it is possible for all of them, simultaneously, to be the appropriate authority. I was hoping that the Minister might clarify who, if a multi-faceted personality is acting as the appropriate authority, has the responsibility for making the decision. Who is consulting whom? It is not clear to me how the consultation process would work, and it is not clear in the Bill whether the responsibility to consult about a draft direction goes beyond consulting the appropriate authority—in its various guises. Is there also a duty to consult other interested parties? The Bill does not seem to provide for consultation with others. Can the Minister clarify whether there is, somewhere in the Bill, a duty that has to be exercised in respect of the directions that are dealt with in clause 3?
4.30 pmDr. Murrison: The clause introduces the radiological protection service into the agency, which is one of the Government's stated intentions, and rightly so, but it has caused some controversy and disquiet in the body concerned. The NRPB is an august organisation of international stature which cannot be understated. It has a huge reputation throughout the world—I am thinking particularly of what happened at Chernobyl, where its expertise was greatly sought after—and is widely accepted as Column Number: 072 peerless. However, we need to tread warily because the clause alters it substantially. There will be those who regret that the board's perceived independence is being degraded and some have said that perhaps its international reputation might also be somewhat degraded. I hope the Minister will be able to assure me that it will continue as an entity, as something that is identifiable, and that its identity will not be submerged within the HPA.I am sure the HPA will develop a reputation of its own, perhaps even one to match that of the NRPB, but it is a new organisation and has not yet had that chance. The board has a high reputation that counts for a great deal with the national and international bodies with which it works and in terms of the ethos and morale of those who work within it. I hope that the Minister will do everything she can to ensure that that ethos and morale is enhanced. I am sure that her officials will have spoken to her on the matter and that she will recognise that some within the board are a little concerned that the transfer to the agency may not be helpful in respect of recruitment and retention. We are talking about expert individuals, whose skills are quite rare. It would be a pity if they were to decide to leave to plough their furrow elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. I should like the Minister to comment on the Defence Radiological Protection Board, the defence arm of our radiological effort in this country. I know from my own service that it provides a great facility, especially in the naval ports, where it is important for protecting the civilian population. I should be grateful if the Minister would assure me that it will not be denuded by the transfer. Miss Johnson: On the transfer of the NRPB's functions to the agency, the intention is that the NRPB functions will be discharged by a discrete entity within the agency, as the CMO's strategy is performed; the internal organisation of an agency such as this is usually a matter for the agency itself. We expect the agency therefore to be at least as effective as the NRPB in carrying out its radiation protection responsibilities. Its advice on radiation protection should be just as authoritative as the NRPB's has been and continues to be. However, there will also be benefits from the synergies achieved by bringing the responsibility for radiation protection for other aspects of health protection into the same organisation, and by the modern set of powers that we propose for the new agency. It is important that the NRPB's independence and impartiality should be maintained and we value its international reputation. The agency will be at least as well equipped as the NRPB is now to maintain its reputation; indeed, it should be more effective given its ability to work across subject boundaries. I agree that the NRPB has worked well in the past 30 years, but it was clear from the consultation that many people involved in health protection and health emergency planning, including the emergency service, welcome the integration of its functions with the agency's as a way of achieving the protection that we need. As I said, that integration of functions makes it easier for Column Number: 073 the agency to tackle the wide range of challenges that it now faces, including CBRN terrorism threats.The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the devolved Administrations. The appropriate authorities are not responsible for the same things. A devolved Administration is responsible where functions are devolved, which varies. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one cannot say simply that matters are devolved across the board. There are certain UK-wide functions and certain functions that relate to other contexts in which the agency deals with issues that bridge the devolved Administrations' responsibilities. Clearly, matters that are devolved fall to them. Only other appropriate authorities need to be consulted. There is no requirement to consult anyone else, but there is a requirement that appropriate authorities should be consulted. Clause 6 identifies the persons to be consulted in respect of a direction under subsection (6) of clause 3, which lists the radiation protection functions, and subsection (13) of clause 4, which lists the supplementary functions, and persons who may be able to make a scheme under subsections (5) and (7) of clause 8, which relates to the transfer of property and staff and persons who may make an order under a clause 12(5) commencement. There is quite a range of people who should be consulted. The Bill limits the functions that the agency might carry out for a devolved Administration acting as an appropriate authority to those that have been devolved in line with my earlier remarks. Devolution in this context makes matters a little trickier, and I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's difficulties in getting to grips with this part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 29 June 2004 |
