---

Health and Social Care Bill

The problem with adding words is that we still have the task of defining things. If between now and the end of the passage of Bill some noble Lord can come up with a word that does the job as well as we think ““things”” does, I ask them please to come and talk to us about it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already had a go at this, but noble Lords should feel free to have another go if they think that it might help. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen will be grateful if somebody can come up with something that they would find as acceptable. Amendments Nos. 177 and 180 would remove the power of a justice of the peace to order the destruction of things or premises that may be infected or contaminated. The power to destroy things or premises is a necessary tool in public health protection because it is not always possible to disinfect or decontaminate articles and premises completely and effectively. It is not desirable to try to isolate permanently articles or premises that continue to pose a danger to public health. It is common practice, for example, for nurses to remove and incinerate the clothes of patients when they are contaminated with blood or could carry infection. It would not fit well with the new legislation to enable a justice of the peace to require an individual to undergo disinfection or decontamination but to remove from the justice of the peace the power to order the incineration of the individual’s contaminated clothing. The noble Earl raised an important point about dead bodies. A dead body must pose a risk of significant harm to human health. The safety of the public is considered even in the Human Rights Act, which has certain qualifications for public health purposes. He has raised an important point and I am concerned that we should satisfy ourselves that all the safeguards are in place. Dead body provisions already exist in Section 45 of the 1984 Act. I will write to him to be clear on this sensitive issue. The Bill addresses it, because a justice of the peace can use the power to destroy a thing or a premise when it is necessary to remove or reduce the risk of infecting or contaminating humans. This provides an important safeguard that an individual’s right to his or her property is not interfered with unless there is a compelling need to do so to protect public health. However, I shall write in more detail to the noble Earl about this. I would like him to be completely satisfied that we are absolutely right about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to the Human Tissue Act. I need to write to her about that, as she asked a legitimate question. We need to make sure that that, too, is covered. The destruction of property would take place only in very exceptional cases. However, the JP can order it without giving notice. These powers are not completely new, because they build on powers in the 1984 Act—for example, the power to disinfect premises. Local authorities currently have these powers without judicial oversight. The Bill outlines judicial oversight and protection. I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied that this is a sensible public health power and will agree to withdraw her amendment.