| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Influenza Vaccine
3.22 pm
Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is the impact of the sale of influenza vaccinations in supermarket pharmacies on the availability of such vaccinations to vulnerable groups.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the distribution of influenza vaccine started in September. By the end of November, 13 million doses will have been delivered to GPs. This represents nearly 90 per cent of the total available vaccine. A further 2 million doses will be delivered by the end of December, making more than 1 million more doses available than were used last year. The UK Vaccine Industry Group has informed us that 97 per cent of influenza vaccine is provided for the NHS with a maximum of 3 per cent going to private sales, a figure that has remained stable over recent years.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that illuminating Answer. But given that supermarket pharmacies, certainly in Cheshire, are selling flu jabs to the general public for £15, can he assure us that GPs will receive these important vaccines? I declare an interest as my local GP has not yet received them. Can the Minister again state that the Government’s priority is that those in vulnerable groups should be treated first?
Lord Warner: My Lords, of course I can. The Government have already exceeded the 75 per cent vaccination of high-risk groups which the World Health Organisation recommended for 2010—they did it last year, and we are continuing along that path. It is for GPs to order their vaccines from the supplier; they do not do it through the Department of Health. As I said, a maximum of 3 per cent is available for private sales, which is meant to ensure that high-risk groups for vaccines go to their GPs for vaccination.
Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, why, every year at this time, do we seem to have a Question or two or three on this subject? Why does there seem to be, for GPs in their practices, always a shortage at this time of year? This is not the first time that we have heard that there has been private supply available when some NHS practices have not had it. Perhaps the Minister can explain why we cannot get vaccines to GPs faster.
11 Oct 2006 : Column 257
Lord Warner: My Lords, there was a problem in the manufacture of vaccines this year where the reagents used did not produce vaccine fast enough. That was a manufacturing problem and nothing to do with the Government or with NHS management. It was an international problem affecting not just this country but all countries. That is the explanation for the slow delivery this year. I think that what has happened is that a rather excitable story appeared in the Daily Express, which was fully briefed on this, about private sales of flu vaccine. They are running at the same level this year as they have in previous years.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the present influenza vaccine now being distributed has no possibility of protecting against a potential bird flu epidemic. While the prospect of a pandemic appears to have receded, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in producing a vaccine against the H5N1 influenza virus strain?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the research industry continues to work in this area. In order to provide an effective vaccine against a pandemic flu, you have to know what the strain is in the first place. However, the Government have put in place a strong pandemic flu plan, including stockpiling antivirals should that unfortunate event actually occur.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how much doctors pay for the vaccine?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is a matter between them and the manufacturers.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, given the coverage we have seen in the media this morning of supermarkets around the country providing vaccine, and since my noble friend has said that the vaccine is fully available in those supermarkets, why do not the doctors buy the jabs from the supermarkets?
Lord Warner: My Lords, let me correct my noble friend. I did not say that the vaccine is available in all supermarkets. I said that 3 per cent of the total supply for this winter might be available in supermarkets and other private pharmacies for purchase. It is still a free country and if people wish to spend their money on that 3 per cent of the vaccine, provided they are not in the high-risk groups, that is down to them.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that what price is paid clearly is a matter between GPs and the manufacturers, what is the answer to my noble friend’s question?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think she needs to ask the GPs.
11 Oct 2006 : Column 258
Parliamentary Costs Bill [HL]
3.28 pm
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether I could ask the noble and learned Lord a question; it is one that I have asked him once before and he said he would be kind enough to consider it.
In the good old days, as one might call them, any business tabled in the name of the then Lord Chancellor was always put down under “The Lord Chancellor”. Were that still to apply, this Motion would be under the name of the Lord Chancellor. In fact, it is under the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. That is a great name, but the name “The Lord Chancellor” is an even better one. I wonder why it is that these things have slipped. When I raised the issue before, the noble and learned Lord said that he would consider it. I suppose he probably gave it 30 seconds of his consideration because obviously it has not made much difference. Would he be kind enough to say that he did consider it and that, owing to an oversight, it has been put down in the name “Lord Falconer of Thoroton” when it should be in the name of the Lord Chancellor?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did consider it, and indeed the noble Earl wrote me a letter to which I have had the discourtesy not to reply. But because he raised the issue once before and because he wrote the letter, I have given it immense thought. I considered whether the Motion should be in name of the Lord Chancellor, and concluded that it should. It is a Law Commission-inspired Bill and it is something that I do as Lord Chancellor. Therefore, ever after—as a result of the noble Earl’s questions and unreplied correspondence, and subject of course to the Table—such Motions will be in the name of the Lord Chancellor. I apologise that it was not done before.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but I am not quite sure whether it takes us any further. This is a Parliamentary Costs Bill in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, but it ought to be in the name of the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the reason why I say “ever after” is that there will never be, I fear, another reference to the Parliamentary Costs Bill. This is a consolidating measure. What I am referring to is all the other consolidating measures that will come before us. I am going to make the same error again in about 45 seconds when we consider the National Health Service consolidation Bill. But there
11 Oct 2006 : Column 259
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord even more than I did before. I had not really realised the impact of what he said. I am very grateful to him for having taken this matter into consideration and for having come to such a wise decision.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no one can say that we are not a listening Government.
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
National Health Service Bill [HL]
National Health Service (Wales) Bill [HL]
National Health Service (Consequential Provisions) Bill [HL]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Armed Forces Bill
3.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Misconduct towards a superior officer]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved AmendmentNo. 31:
The noble Lord said: My first task is to declare an interest as the recently appointed president of the Association of Military Advocates and to indicate that I am currently engaged in a court martial and therefore have some interest in this matter.
Clause 11(2) sets out an offence in these terms:
“A person subject to service law commits an offence if ... his behaviour towards a superior officer (‘B’) is threatening or disrespectful”.
The amendment would remove “or disrespectful”.
The basis of my argument is that threatening a superior officer and being disrespectful to a superior officer are two entirely disparate situations. The huge distinction between making a threat and being disrespectful is recognised by subsection (4), which provides for a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment
11 Oct 2006 : Column 260
Another problem is that there is no statutory defence. It is very interesting to compare this provision with Article 89 of the American Universal Code of Military Justice, which creates a similar offence, but separately from that of being threatening. The code defines the offence in this way:
“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect towards his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct”.
But, unlike this proposed legislation, it contains a definition of “disrespect”:
“Disrespectful behavior is that which detracts from the respect due the authority and person of a superior commissioned officer. It may consist of acts or language, however expressed, and it is immaterial whether they refer to the superior as an officer or as a private individual. Disrespect by words may be conveyed by abusive epithets or other contemptuous or denunciatory language. Truth is no defense. Disrespect by acts includes neglecting the customary salute or showing a marked disdain, indifference, insolence, impertinence, undue familiarity or other rudeness in the presence of the superior officer”.
Your Lordships may appreciate my comment that “disrespectful” is an extremely broad idea. There is in the American code, however, a special defence:
“A superior commissioned officer whose conduct in relation to the accused under the circumstances departs substantially from the required standards appropriate to that officer’s rank or position under similar circumstances loses the protection of this article. That accused may not be convicted of being disrespectful to the officer who has so lost the entitlement to respect protected by Article 89”.
Your Lordships may feel that that is a very sensible, special statutory defence. Furthermore, unlike the two-year period of imprisonment that is the maximum for the offences suggested in the Bill, the maximum punishment in America is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for one year.
Disrespect is a concept that ought not to be linked as a criminal offence with threatening behaviour, which of course is very serious. I cannot think of any instance of being disrespectful which would not be covered by the familiar offence repeated in Clause 19 of conduct,
which, incidentally, carries exactly the same penalty. But case law on conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline allows a defendant to argue that he spoke the truth or that his offending words or gestures were not prejudicial to good order and discipline.
I am indebted to Mr Gilbert Blades, a very experienced solicitor-advocate in this field, for his recollection of a case in which a sergeant called the regimental sergeant-major’s argument at a sergeants’ mess a load of “unparliamentary language”. I will not give your Lordships the precise terms. The sergeant was charged with conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline,
11 Oct 2006 : Column 261
The purpose of the amendment is to separate the offence of being “disrespectful”; at the very least it should be clearly defined, and a special defence similar to that set out in the United States statute should be incorporated in it. But since that would take some drafting, I will leave it for a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: We have some sympathy with the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but I want to be clear about its exact nature. The amendment seeks to remove the word “disrespectful” from the Bill altogether. We are not sympathetic to that; we believe that it has a place in military law. Respect for the commission, and everything that derives from that, is a key part of discipline in our Armed Forces.
The amendment severs “disrespectful” from “threatening”, but does not seek to replace the word in any part of the Bill. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I sense that his rather thorough exegesis of the American law suggests that he might be prepared to entertain the reintroduction of “disrespectful” in some other part of the Bill if it contained both a careful definition and a statutory defence. I see the noble Lord nodding, so that is clearly the direction in which he is going.
Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to the Minister that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as he outlined it, is worthy of serious consideration by the Government. We would need to think carefully about it; but we would not be in favour of removing altogether the concept of disrespect.
Serving in the Armed Forces is unlike any other activity. The notion of respect for superior authority is absolutely vital to operational effectiveness in the field. The notion of disrespect is a component of it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has rightly raised an important point and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reaction.
Lord Borrie: I felt a great deal of sympathy with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, except on two matters. If my recollection is right, he said that “disrespectful” could include what a superior officer thought was disrespectful. Clause 11 is sufficiently objective, as it states that a person commits an offence if his behaviour “is” threatening or disrespectful. The mere subjective view of a superior officer would not be sufficient.
The second point on which I quarrel slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is in his reference to Clause 19, which sets out the familiar offence of doing something which is prejudicial to good order and service discipline. I recollect that the phrase was “military discipline” in my day, but it is the same thing and the offence is enormously wide in scope. However, I notice that Clause 19 states that an offence is committed only if a person,
11 Oct 2006 : Column 262
Therefore, some of the examples of disrespect given by the noble Lord under Clause 11, which included words which were disrespectful, would not be covered by the existing Clause 19.
However, the noble Lord’s nod in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, indicated that he does not want just to be negative and to delete “disrespectful”, but, ideally, would wish—perhaps it is more appropriate for the Minister to do it than him—to introduce a separate clause as an amendment so that there is a clear distinction between “threatening” and “disrespectful”. I entirely agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is not appropriate to include in the description of the same offence those two, very disparate matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The suggestion is that “disrespectful” must be defined. How on earth do you define it other than as “want of respect”? I do not see where we are going with this. Perhaps the Minister could deal with it.
Lord Drayson: I have listened carefully to the exchanges across the Committee on this matter. It goes to the heart of the ethos of the Armed Forces. An important part of that ethos is to make clear the need for respect towards a senior to support the command relationship. The lack of a definition of “disrespectful” is not a problem, because all members of the Armed Forces are given clear training in how to address their superiors and how to behave towards them. In this context, what amounts to “disrespectful” within the ethos of the Armed Forces is clear.
Therefore, the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has relating to the word being too broad and not defined is not in practice an issue that would cause us a problem. We recognise that there is a judgment to be made on the maximum sentence of 10 years, which is a reduction from an indeterminate period of imprisonment in these circumstances, and we think that 10 years is appropriate.
3.45 pm
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister should look again at subsection (4), which says that 10 years is the maximum for—no, he is right, in fact. The Bill says that,
It does not refer to behaviour that is disrespectful. In that eventuality, the Bill proposes two years.
I am very grateful for the support that I have had from noble Lords. I shall take the matter away and see whether I can agree with the Government on an appropriate way in which to split “threatening” from “disrespectful”, which might be more appropriate and of greater utility in the field of military offences. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |