---

Health and Social Care Bill

Amendments Nos. 198 to 203 would replace the emergency procedures in the Bill with those contained in the Civil Contingencies Act. The noble Baroness gave a lucid exposition of why that was the case and what the Government’s response has been up to this point. I understand the intention. However, the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act is not the Civil Contingencies Act. The types of provisions that could be made are very different and it would therefore be inappropriate to apply the civil contingency emergency regulations procedure. For example, Amendment No. 203 would require the recall of Parliament to debate and approve regulations made using the urgent procedure. Recalling Parliament is not done lightly. Such an action is reserved for essential debates of great national importance. This might indeed be one but, on the other hand, it might not be. If there were an outbreak of a new infection abroad, similar to SARS, the World Health Organisation could recommend that certain surveillance systems were put in place—the noble Baroness referred to those. We would want to use the public health emergency powers to create regulations that would enable the surveillance regime to be implemented without delay. However, it would surely not be appropriate to recall Parliament to debate such a measure. Amendment No. 199 also would allow regulations made using the urgent procedure to be amended by Parliament before they were approved. It is not normal parliamentary procedure to allow regulations to be amended. Regulations that may need to be set in place in times of a significant threat to public health may be technical and based on scientific understanding and advice from experts such as the World Health Organisation and the Health Protection Agency. It would not be appropriate to enable such regulations to be amended during their passage through both Houses on the basis of decisions that could be taken on a political rather than a scientific basis. I understand the Committee’s concern that the measures taken under urgent regulations must be subject to safeguards. That is why we have ensured that safeguards built into the provisions will remain even when the regulations are made under the urgent procedures, such as only including powers that overlap with those of a justice of the peace when there is a serious and imminent threat to public health requiring a right of appeal to a magistrate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.