Clause 3 - Radiation protection functions
Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in

clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out 'such of'.

Mr Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 10, in

clause 3, page 2, line 42, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 43.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

Having said that we were dealing with the engine room of the Bill in clause 2, I have to say that we have now reached an equally important point with clause 3. One of the stated objectives of the HPA is to amalgamate the current special health authority with the radiological protection service to form the agency. That is clearly stated, and clause 3 carries it out.

I have a certain interest in this issue, which I shall describe when we debate clause stand part rather than at this juncture. However, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are quite straightforward. They do not presume to cherry-pick the functions of the current National Radiological Protection Board for incorporation within the agency. That is what comes across from clause 3(2). In essence, I propose that the whole of the current functions of the NRPB should be transferred to the agency.

The Minister has plenty of powers subsequently to tweak that. It may well be that, in the fullness of time, Ministers will feel that the functions of the NRPB, as amalgamated in the agency, need to be enhanced or reduced. It will be well within their competence to do that. I am intrigued as to why, at this stage, functions should be shifted piecemeal from the NRPB to the agency. The Minister will be aware that there is disquiet in the NRPB at an individual level about what the future holds. If the functions are not to be transferred wholesale to the agency, those anxieties will be heightened.

The amendment is reasonable. I suspect that it will not really affect the functions carried out by the agency in terms of radiological protection. However, while we are trying to decide exactly what those functions will be, it seems sensible to transfer the whole of the NRPB to the agency. In an evolutionary way, we can then decide which of those functions need to be maintained and which enhanced. In essence, that

is what I propose through these two amendments. I hope that the Minister will consider them carefully.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

The amendments would require all the functions exercisable by the NRPB at the date of commencement to be transferred automatically to the agency. Therefore, the appropriate authority would lose its discretion to decide whether the agency was a suitable home for the functions concerned both now and in the future. There would be no requirement to consult appropriate authorities. There would be no provision allowing the transfer to be revoked and the agency would have to carry out those functions until such time as the primary legislation was changed.

I do not think that is what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I recognise the issues he is raising, but his amendment would not achieve the effect that he seeks. We will therefore not accept the amendment. The sentiment behind it is that the presumption should be that the functions that the NRPB currently carries out should transfer automatically to the agency. The Government share that general presumption, as the approach that we have taken in subsection (1) makes clear.

However, the functions on which we envisage issuing a direction under subsection (2) are different. They are not the functions given to the NRPB by the Radiological Protection Act 1970 or a core part of its business that could not be removed from it or from any successor body without compromising its independence or effectiveness. They are the administrative functions, which, over the years, it has been found convenient to have the NRPB, rather than the Department of Health, perform.

Some of the responses to the 2002 consultation paper were concerned that the agency should take these functions over from the NRPB. Subsection (2) allows for that to happen. That is probably not the hon. Gentleman's understanding, which is why he is looking so bemused by this. We have no wish to pursue the alternative of returning the functions to the Department of Health. That would be inconsistent with our view that the Department of Health should not perform functions that can be done better elsewhere.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I think that the Minister is reassuring me. Just to be clear, is it her intention to transfer the NRPB wholesale, as it stands, to the agency?

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Could he repeat the question?

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I will certainly do so. This is as much for the benefit of the employees of the NRPB as anyone else. Is it the Minister's intention to transfer the NRPB, as it currently stands, wholesale to the agency? If not, perhaps she could tell us which parts she is looking at.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

We are looking to deal with the administrative functions. Subsection (2) allows for the appropriate authority to direct the agency to take responsibility for functions that are carried out at the date of commencement by the NRPB. We explained in our memorandum to the House of Lords Delegated

Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the NRPB currently provides a secretariat for one advisory non-Departmental public body, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, and a support unit for another, the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee.

Our intention is to use this power to direct the agency to take over those functions, thereby ensuring continuity. This is not about what will transfer within the existing curtilage of the principal role and core functions of the NRPB, but the additional things that need to go across. That is why the amendment would not have the desired effect. That is why I reassured him that we share the general presumption that the functions that the NRPB currently carries out should transfer to the agency automatically. That is not what the clause is about. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

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 Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

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 Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

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.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

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

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

''the provision of information and advice in relation to the protection of the community (or any part of the community) from such risks.''

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

''information and advice in relation to the protection of the community''

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 Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

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

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?

Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

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 Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

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:

''A direction under this section must not be given unless the person giving the direction has consulted each of the other persons mentioned in section 6.''

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?

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

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

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 Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

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

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.

Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the relevant clauses, but will she

confirm that the only consultation that is needed in respect of the several direction-making powers in the clause is with the persons set out in clause 6, who are the relevant, or appropriate, authorities? Will she confirm that no other party or body is to be consulted or involved in that consultation?

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

As I said, there is certainly no requirement to consult anyone else. That does not necessarily mean that no one else will be consulted, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate.

The hon. Member for Newark asked whether the responsibility to provide information and advice was being taken seriously. The answer is yes, which is why these matters are included in subsection (1)(b), as they are in the NRPB legislation:

''to provide information and advice to persons (including government departments) with responsibilities in the United Kingdom in relation to the protection from radiation hazards either of the community as a whole or of particular sections of the community.''

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, that we recognise the great importance of CBRN threats and the whole question of information, but the HPA is not the only agency involved in CBRN matters and other related matters to which I referred. I believe that that deals with the points raised by Opposition Members, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock till Thursday 1 July at five minutes past Nine o'clock.