| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Andrews: The whole point is that, by not specifying any body, we are free to specify all by
implication. That is the nature of the inclusivity. Once we start trying to identify bodies, we are by definition bound to leave people out.
Earl Howe: I completely accept that the amendment is flawed, and I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the ways in which it is flawed. However, she may want to reflect on the wider points that I sought to make by tabling the amendment, not least on the relationship of the Bill to the Civil Contingencies Bill, because I am still not quite clear whether the Bill will be subject to that Bill once it is enacted. Perhaps she will clarify that when she writes to me.
I am well aware, as is any other Member of the Committee, of the curse of the list. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put it, there are always drawbacks in having limited lists. However, my goodness the list in the Bill is limited. It contains only one type of body—local authorities—and I question whether that is appropriate. Perhaps we should reflect on that before Report.
One issue on which I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments is whether she thinks that there is any overlap between the work of the agency and that of other bodies. For example, we have a Health Protection Agency, a Health Development Agency and a Food Standards Agency. I am sure that each has a mission statement which is different from that of the others, but can we say that their work is entirely distinct and discrete in all respects? If it is not—Clause 5 strongly implies that there could be some overlap between the work of the HPA and other bodies—what questions does that raise for the effectiveness and efficiency of public health protection?
Without going on too long, I should say that the wider background is of course the position of the UK in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, alluded to that. We cannot as a country act in isolation from others. In future, it is likely that the EU will become a major regulator and legislator in public health. There is to be a communicable disease centre, I understand, in Sweden, which will act on behalf of all member states. In an increasing sense, competency in the area will lie with the EU. Therefore, as we legislate on a national UK agency, it is necessary to bear in mind how the structures that we put in place will enable us to fulfil our responsibilities on the international stage and, where appropriate, to take a lead on that stage.
The framework of UK law surrounding public health is way overdue for reform. The Bill is one step in that reform, but there are very old laws on the statute book relating, for example, to the role and powers of local authorities, which are completely anachronistic. Legally speaking, local authorities have enormous powers that are hardly ever used, but those powers sit at odds with modern scientific knowledge and with the modern NHS. My point is that, unless and until we have a root-and-branch reform of the law surrounding communicable disease control, we cannot hold our heads up either at home or internationally and state truthfully that we have a UK system that is firing on all cylinders. Reform must define precisely
the responsibilities and lines of command—day to day and in emergencies—and make clear who is in ultimate control. It is simply not enough to talk about co-operation and to hope, as the clause seems to do, that somehow all will be well; the issue is much wider. I hope that I have left the Minister with some interesting food for thought.
Baroness Andrews: I wish to reassure the noble Earl about a couple of matters. We will certainly write to him on the specific point about the civil contingencies plan and the intervention with the HPA. Secondly, on overlap, the flip answer would be to say, "For that, we read 'co-ordination'". In fact, the arm's-length body review is looking precisely at areas of overlap and will include—I am sure that my noble friend will ensure that it does—some of the issues on which the noble Earl has touched.
The noble Earl is absolutely right to say that it is hard to foretell how other EU countries will address the challenging issues of communicable disease, and whether there will be more institutional organisations to do that. That is a very good argument for not being rigid or exclusive in our definitions.
As regards the reform of structures, it is interesting to hear the noble Earl call for more legislation—I think that that was the call we heard. I hope that we can sort some of those matters out by correspondence.
Earl Howe: I thank the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Publication of information]:
Lord Fowler moved Amendment No. 28:
- Page 5, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29. With the Committee's agreement and the prior agreement of my noble friend Lord Howe, we wish to decouple Amendments Nos. 32 and 57, so dealing with them immediately afterwards in a separate debate.
The purpose of Amendment No. 28 is to probe and to understand the limits of this subsection, which concerns the Data Protection Act. To some extent, we have dealt with some of those issues under a previous amendment. My assumption is that information gathered at public expense should be made available to the public. It is important that the public have as much information as possible, for otherwise they have no way of judging what is happening in a number of areas; the dangers to which they are exposed; and, above all, whether the Government's response to the challenges is adequate. I recognise that we must meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act, but, as has already been pointed out, we have had examples in other areas where the requirements of that Act seem to have been misinterpreted. It is crucial that we are clear on what the Act specifies and its impact and effect. In
essence, I want the Minister to give a clear explanation of the kind of information that, in the Government's view, contravenes the Data Protection Act, and that would not be published under this provision.Amendment No. 29 continues on very much the same theme. Again, I would work on the presumption that information gathered should be published, because these are important health issues; and, most importantly, that published information is the only way that the Government can be held to account for the policies that they pursue. We can judge whether the Government's response is adequate only if we know the full picture. If information is withheld, that process clearly becomes impossible. That certainly would not be in the public interest.
Subsection (2)(c) provides that if the publication is not in the public interest, it can be withheld. I am concerned to know what information can be withheld on that basis. Is information gathered already that is withheld from publication? If so, what kind of information is that? If not, what information is it envisaged will be withheld that is already published? Above all, what I really want to know from the Minister is who actually decides what is in the public interest. Where is the decision made? How is it processed?
My belief is that, generally, publication is in the public interest for holding governments—any government—to account; informing the public of the dangers; and advising them on the action that they may take. In essence, I really want to know from the Government what kind of information can be banned on public interest grounds; by what process that decision is made; and how it can be challenged. How can it be challenged if information is withheld on public interest grounds? How are we to know and challenge the idea that it is not against the public interest?
We do not want a position in which any government can withhold information on the grounds that it may be embarrassing to that government. That is the temptation—that governments intervene and say, "This information is embarrassing to us; we believe on public interest grounds that it should be withheld". I do not define that as the proper public interest, and I want reassurances on those crucial points in the public health debate. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I support my noble friend in all that he said. On the question of public interest, I was trying to think what circumstances might arise in which it would be unwise or unhelpful to allow information into the public domain. As my noble friend said, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some possible examples.
On the whole, I hope that the Minister will agree that public confidence is engendered by maximum transparency. To insert a provision, as in the Bill, to allow information to be suppressed on the grounds that its release would not be in the public interest begs the question of who makes that judgment and on what grounds the judgment is made. If it is Ministers who
make it, that needs to be spelled out. If it is the agency itself, we need to know whether it will be operating under any sort of guidance in that and, if so, what that guidance will say.I have considerable sympathy with the two amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. They would effectively prevent the agency taking the decision to suppress information on anything other than a carefully considered basis, as it would be obliged to account for its actions if it did so.
Another fear that runs parallel to that is that consultants in communicable disease control will effectively become civil servants, and that as such they will be debarred from speaking out when they feel it necessary. Healthcare professionals should not be put in that position. They should be able to speak their minds publicly in appropriate circumstances because, unless they can, public confidence in the agency will be diminished. Can the Minister tell us whether those consultants officially hold their positions within the agency as civil servants?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page