| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for his replies. On Amendment No. 13 he said that the Health and Safety Commission already has the power to make agreements with other bodies and that there is no reason to think that the agency and the Health and Safety Commission would not agree. I cannot dissent from that, but the point I sought to make was perhaps
the more legalistic one: that the provision purports to bind the agency into making an agreement. From my limited legal knowledge I think that that is an odd provision to put into statute. Perhaps I may be so bold as to leave the matter with the Minister to reflect upon before Report.I was grateful for the Minister's remarks on Amendment No. 14 and particularly government Amendment No. 15. Because the tabling of the government amendment was so recent, I suggested that it might be good for Members of the Committee to have a chance to reflect on the implications of it before Report, thus deferring the amendment of the Bill until then. It is not a matter of huge controversy, but I cannot help observing that it is a pity that what I thought was the subordination of the powers by Scottish Ministers in favour of Ministers in Westminster will be diluted, albeit in this modest way. Surely the more joined-up the radiological protection functions, the better it will be for everyone.
If the Minister is content not to move his amendment at present, perhaps I might have the advantage of speaking to him further before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Until we hear further from the Minister I shall be in some difficulty, because I ought to advise the Committee that, were Amendment No. 15 to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 16 because of pre-emption.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: If I may, I should like to spend a short time looking at some of the issues surrounding the absorption of the National Radiological Protection Board into the HPA. Although the decision is not something I intend to oppose in any way, it is important that the concerns expressed in relation to it are squarely confronted and, so far as possible, put to bed.
If we look back at the work of the NRPB over the past 30 and more years, no one can level a criticism of any significance about the service it has given to the nation, or of the ability and dedication of the men and women who have worked to deliver that service—quite the contrary. The NRPB has been an outstanding success story, and for that very reason we need to be extremely careful that, in abolishing it, we do not jeopardise the effectiveness of the radiological protection work that must continue under the broader umbrella of the new agency.
There are perhaps two dangers against which Ministers must guard. One is that the expertise present in the NRPB will leach away and disperse once the agency assumes its new shape. In a large organisation, staff tend to get seconded into all sorts of different areas of work, often necessitating a move of home and
office by the individual. For NRPB staff that would be little short of disastrous because they are concentrated in particular locations and such expertise most certainly does not grow on trees. One cannot simply go along to a university and replace a radiological expert in the same way that one might replace someone with a knowledge of infectious disease control. Instead one must ensure that the bank of expertise is nurtured and replenished by a continuing programme of research.The maintenance of that programme is best assured by having a discrete, ring-fenced budget for radiological protection work which can be allocated appropriately year by year. Without a certain critical mass, not only would we lose effectiveness at home, we risk losing it internationally, where our advice on radiological protection is respected and we have active networks, involving named individuals, which can be deployed rapidly if need be. It was primarily for those reasons that the NRPB, in its response to the Government's consultation paper, asked that the board should remain as a discrete entity within the agency. I do not think, even at this late stage, that the logic of its arguments can be seriously faulted. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how those concerns will be addressed.
The second danger of absorbing the board into the agency is that the additional layers of bureaucracy associated with a larger organisational structure may impede the ability of staff on the ground to deliver advice to the Government as rapidly and fully as they would wish. Within the current NRPB, access to Ministers is immediate, because the chairman is directly accountable to the Minister for Public Health. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the fear of additional organisational barriers identified by the NRPB is imaginary, and that the reporting lines to be put in place within the agency will ensure that access to Ministers, when required, is as speedy as may be necessary and as it has been hitherto.
5 p.m.
Lord Warner: I, too, would like to associate myself with the tributes paid by the noble Earl to the work and staff of the National Radiological Protection Board. There is certainly no intention on the part of the Government or the HPA in any way to weaken its international reputation. It is still intended that its work will be a discrete entity within the HPA, as the Chief Medical Officer's strategy proposed.
Will it be as effective as in the past? We see no reason why the agency should not be at least as effective as is the NRPB in carrying out radiation protection responsibilities. Its advice on radiation protection should be just as authoritative as the board was and continues to be. But there will also be benefits from the synergies achieved by bringing responsibility for radiation protection and other aspects of health protection into the same organisation and by the modern set of powers that we propose for the new agency.
We agree that the board's reputation for independence and impartiality should not be undermined, and have tried to take that into account
in proposing that the new agency should be established as a non-departmental public body, as is the NRPB now, and by giving it more explicit power to publish its advice and information than the NRPB currently has. So we have strengthened that aspect of the board's work.We also value the NRPB's international reputation. We believe that the new agency will be at least as well equipped as is the board to maintain that reputation. Indeed, it should be more effective, given its ability to work across subject boundaries. The Bill gives it clear powers to make staff available for international work.
I have always said that we believe that the board has worked well over 30 years, but I ask the Committee to recognise that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that we can deal with new challenges, including threats of terrorism. It was clear from our consultation that many involved in health protection and emergency planning, including the emergency services, welcomed the inclusion of the NRPB's functions in the HPA as a way to achieve that. From the work that has been done so far, I see no reason to believe that radiation protection will receive a lower priority as part of the HPA's work. As I said earlier, the work plan of the HPA can be formalised in a way that ensures that that does not happen.
To summarise, we do not agree that we have in any way weakened the position of radiation protection. The agency will be an independent, non-departmental public body. The good thing is that in other respects, incorporation in the HPA will mean positive gains for radiation protection work. The HPA's local and regional structure will facilitate communication with the public about radiation protection. There will be benefits for staff, who will be able to broaden their scientific expertise and take advantage of extra opportunities for career development in a larger, dynamic organisation.
As I said, there will be clear synergies between the work of the HPA and the NRPB, especially in emergency response and in relation to radiation and chemical hazards. In general, things have moved on since some of the comments made in the consultation exercise. I understand that staff are now positive about those developing interactions, and that the establishment of the HPA's headquarters dealing with chemical hazards at the NRPB's Chilton site has been welcomed.
From my briefing, I understand that the board has already established a good working relationship and is now actively involved at executive group level in a wide range of HPA planning groups. In the view of both organisations, it would be a retrograde step not to proceed as we propose. It is also worth mentioning that by bringing together the two bodies as proposed under the Bill—bringing the board into the new agency—we can economise a little on some back office functions, which will produce resources for more front-line work. That will increasingly be a feature throughout the public service, as people consider how to economise on back office services such as finance, human resources, IT and estates management, so that
they can free up resources for the frontline services provided by any particular public service body. There is scope for doing that, and it has already been realised in the joint working between the board and the Health Protection Agency Special Health Authority.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Earl that we have a thought-out position. There is no intention to diminish the independence and authority of the work done on radiation protection.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page