| Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]
|
|
Miss Johnson: The Government do not intend to use the power to direct the agency to take account of aspects of policy that could be used to micro-manage the agency or to dictate its detailed operational arrangements. Indeed, the premise of the Bill and the basis on which the arrangements are set out is that the agency is a grown-up body and should be left to make grown-up arrangements on its own behalf. We do not need to be the hand in the glove all the time.
Column Number: 79 I shall give another example of a situation in which the power could be relevant. The Department has a policy that research should generally be published. If the agency did not publish its research, which is very unlikely, it could be directed to take account of the policy. Again, however, the Department would not necessarily dictate what it did in any specific instance. Again, it has a general, across-the-board policy.On the issue of the arm's length body review, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned, we could not use subsection (7) to give the agency new functions or detailed operational instructions. There may be no requirements in legislation as regards research or the payment of bills—to take two good examples—but normal, accepted practices may already be in place. Clause 4 is simply a rainy-day clause: in the unlikely event that things go badly wrong, it will help us to do what is necessary. Dr. Murrison: I am content with the Minister's explanation. She gave some helpful examples, which have clarified her intentions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Burstow: I wish to raise two issues, the first of which arises out of the exchanges that we have just had. I want to repeat my question about the Government's thinking on subsections (7) and (8). As the Minister said, the formulation is similar to that used for the Healthcare Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection rather than that used for the Food Standards Agency. It would be helpful if she could tell us what the thinking was that led the Government to base the formulation on the commission model rather than the Food Standards Agency model? Secondly, I want briefly to probe the Government on the issue of surveillance, which is dealt with elsewhere in the clause and which I would have raised in my amendment, had I moved it. What timetable will the HPA work to in moving from the mandatory monitoring of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to the mandatory monitoring of several other bacteria? It is some time since the Government said that the intention was to move to mandatory monitoring. In many people's minds, health care-acquired infections are synonymous with MRSA, but the category is far broader. It would be helpful to know when the data will start being collected on a mandatory basis so that we have a clearer picture of the scale of hospital-acquired infection.
Miss Johnson: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman on his general anxieties about surveillance, which he also raised on Second Reading? At this point, it would probably be useful to discuss his amendment, which would have put a duty on the agency to prepare plans for expanding its surveillance activities and to publish its findings, together with an assessment of the costs. The agency already has a power to prepare and publish Column Number: 80 plans for surveillance activities if it so chooses, so the amendment is undesirable for two reasons. First, as I said, we want the agency to be independent and grown up. Secondly, the amendment would have raised questions about why surveillance, among all the agency's other activities, had been singled out for attention, and why proposals had been made for expansion.Surveillance is an essential activity, and the agency will be just as dependent as the special health authority on improving surveillance if it is to discharge the functions that we envisage under clauses 2 and 3. We do not use the term ''surveillance'' in the Bill, however, because we are aware of only one other instance in which it has been used. That was in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which applies to covert activities, so it is perhaps a little different from what we are dealing with here. We want uniformly high standards of clinical microbiology throughout the NHS. To take up one of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, it is important that the high standards in the labs run by the Public Health Laboratory Service are retained and, if anything, enhanced. We have taken steps to ensure that that is the case with the new post of inspector of microbiology. The HPA currently undertakes a substantial amount of surveillance—if I can use that word—and it has inherited a number of systems from every part of the country. It is now working on a strategy, which will be put out to consultation in October 2004. That is essential, because the agency obviously relies on joint working with the NHS, local authorities and the other bodies that we have discussed. The agency is working well, although there are gaps that the strategy will address. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will be interested to see that and will no doubt participate in the consultation in whichever way he sees fit, when the time comes. Dr. Murrison: This is a busy clause and there is a great deal in it. We have one or two concerns. There is a lot in subsection (3) and, my word, the agency will be jolly busy discharging it. On Tuesday we clarified what the agency's important work would be. I am concerned that in setting up companies, for example, the agency will run the risk of taking its eye off the ball. I am not necessarily against public bodies' diversifying into the commercial sector. However, I know from personal experience that there is sometimes a tendency for a body's functions to become diluted in the pursuit of commercial spin-offs and so on. I seek the Minister's assurance that that will not happen to the agency, particularly as it will by all accounts be so important in discharging the various functions that we discussed in relation to clauses 2 and 3. On reflection, I think that the Bill would be greatly enhanced by including a reference to education in subsection (1)(e). We have talked about training, but on Tuesday we decided between us that education would be a major part of the agency's functions. We talked about ''Protect and Survive'' and we have rehearsed the arguments today, but that probably falls in the category of education, rather than training. I Column Number: 81 hope that the Minister will agree on reflection that giving more prominence to the word ''education'' in the Bill would be helpful.I am a little concerned by the list in subsection (1). The ALB review is due to start shortly. By the time that the Bill returns to the House on Report, I suspect that the review will have been finished—at least I hope so. The Minister may wish to amend the list in subsection (1), in the light of the abolition of various bodies as a result of the review. Perhaps she would like to comment on that in broad terms. Subsection (3)(b) is quite tricky. It concerns the setting up of companies, but we have not discussed that at great length. To be fair, I think that the issue is beyond the ken of many members of the Committee, because it is complicated and legally fraught. However, I should like to register my slight concern. The provisions give a general power, and that is fine—I assume that we might see more in regulations. From my limited understanding, I know that the issue is a minefield. The HPA might encounter difficulties in setting up companies and drawing up contracts. I suppose that I am thinking of my constituency interests at Porton Down, where I understand that a similar process is going ahead. I hope very much that the powers have been designed with Porton Down in mind. Miss Johnson: Some of the functions in clause 4 are bread-and-butter activities for a number of bodies. The functions described may relate to everyday matters, as well as the setting up of companies, which the hon. Gentleman assumed was all that the provisions referred to. The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research has huge commercial experience and Porton Down is involved with a wide range of other commercial activities, so there is a lot of experience in the organisation. Any organisation may need to use a number of powers to provide for its everyday functions, to make sure that its staff are accommodated and that it is supplied in a variety of ways, as well as to deal with its commercial interests. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, knowing the success of the arrangements at Porton Down, will agree that such provisions have so far proved to be not a distraction but an enhancement. We should be confident that the HPA will not go in a direction that is intended to distract from its role, but where useful it will enhance its role and help others to enhance theirs. That will work towards the general effectiveness of the agency. I am sure that the agency has its eye on the ball in its current performance, and will not be distracted in any way. The question is which of the functions may be necessary on occasion in order to take forward the HPA's business in the most appropriate way possible and to support appropriately the functions that it needs to support. Column Number: 82
9.30 amMr. Burstow: The Minister is about to sit down, but I want to make sure that the opportunity is not missed to answer the question that I asked about the FSA versus the CHAI formulation. Could she address that point? Miss Johnson: There are a number of differences. For example, some of the powers are paralleled in recent legislation, such as the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 provisions for CHAI and the CSCI. Subsection (2), for example, on which I believe the hon. Gentleman commented on Second Reading, certainly would not enable the agency to detain anyone or to enter specific premises. It would need specific powers to do that. I have also looked at the arrangements for the FSA model. That is old legislation—perhaps that is a little unfair, but it is certainly more than five years old—and it created a non-ministerial department, not a non-departmental public body. There are a number of differences. The Food Standards Agency—which I assume is what the hon. Gentleman means by the FSA—has a fairly unusual set of arrangements across Government, which were made partly in response to the great concerns about the independence of food advice following the BSE scandal. That body has a different set of needs to the body that we are considering. Question put and agreed to. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 1 July 2004 |
