INTRODUCED as an emergency measure in the wake of the horrors of 11
September, Britain鈥檚 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill received much flak,
both in Parliament and the media. Yet for all the rumpus and anger that greeted
the bill, I was the only MP to challenge the section dealing with security at
labs holding dangerous substances.
Now I should make it clear that I think some of the safety rules in Part 7,
鈥淐ontrol of Pathogens and Toxins鈥�, are thoroughly sensible, given the recent
widespread panic created by the anthrax scare in the US. The public has a right
to expect safeguards in laboratories holding substances such as anthrax or
smallpox, as well as effective checks on people who work there.
What I wanted to know was whether the government had assessed the costs of
the security arrangements that the bill calls for, whether it had spoken to any
particular labs about their plans, and when the much-vaunted Pathogens Access
Appeal Commission would be set up.
Advertisement
Beverley Hughes, the junior Home Office minister, replied that people who
manage labs holding these dangerous substances must ensure that they are kept
securely. Moreover, they must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the
substances do not fall into the hands of anyone who might try to misuse them.
However, the government does not consider that the bill鈥檚 increased reporting
requirements will prove a burden. Clearly they will incur a cost, Hughes said,
but that cost has not yet been calculated because the Home Office did not have
time to consult labs before drafting the bill. When the police checked a number
of establishments prior to the bill being introduced, they reported that the
security arrangements in many were adequate and thus no further costs would be
needed. In other instances, the police considered some improvements to be
necessary. Specifically the bill requires labs to comply with security
directions from the police, she added. If a laboratory believes that these
directions are unreasonable, it has the right to appeal to a magistrates鈥�
court.
Finally, Hughes said that the Pathogens Access Appeal Commission would be set
up as quickly as possible following the Royal Assent that brings it into law.
The commission鈥檚 role will be to consider appeals against the Home Secretary鈥檚
decision to deny individuals access to dangerous substances, or to the premises
where those substances are held.
I fear that many lab workers are unlikely to find things quite the same as
before 11 September. The bill, which has passed into law as I write, will be
reviewed in two years鈥� time.
THE European Commission鈥檚 environment directorate got a trifle peeved when I
claimed recently that not enough was being done to defend coasts from flooding
(6 October, p 61).
And no wonder: given more space, I would have mentioned what
was being done at the European level.
The directorate is keen to point out that it encourages member countries to
take a sustainable approach to their coastal zones. But it warns that when
countries try to solve the problems that their coastal zones face, they should
be aware that their solutions may have an impact on adjacent zones.
For an overview of what the Commission is doing in this area, visit
www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/iczm/home.htm,
where you can download the report,
Turning the Tide for Europe鈥檚 Coastal Zones.