My Lords, rather like the debate that we had on the drugs order yesterday, I think it is quite hard for lay people—certainly such as I am—to judge proposals such as this. We have to rely on the experts and are grateful that they are there to advise. My noble friend the Minister has referred to the balance that has been struck. I take the point about the need for there to be a balance, although I was interested to read in the notes attached to the impact assessment the list of criteria used by the Lightfoot review as to which biological agents should be included or excluded from the list. In particular, it was quite interesting that ease of production was one of them, since a substance, a pathogen or toxin was of a level of danger or not. I do not see that as affected by the ease of production, but I suppose that the whole area of risk is quite tricky.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I looked at the paragraph on consultation and cannot believe that the health services were not consulted. The impact of any of these getting loose, as it were, is clearly relevant to them. Could the Minister say a word about their involvement in the process?
Apart from those questions, I support the order.
Schedule 5 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Modification) Order 2012
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 March 2012.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Schedule 5 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Modification) Order 2012.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c177GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:48:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_820038
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_820038
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_820038