| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Oppenheim: I would not say that that question is necessarily hypothetical. One would hope that it might be, but in the world as it is, it might not be. The only answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that, if there were a
challenge inspection within the terms of the convention, we would be obliged to accept that. If a challenge were outside the terms, obviously we would not be so obliged. I think that is the best answer that I can give him.
I understand the feeling behind the two amendments, but they are unnecessary and would restrict the convention's application. The powers that we are taking are not draconian, but the House's ultimate defence is that, if the Government did try to propose any regulations that were especially odious to the House, it could pray against the negative resolution.
Mr. Ingram:
It is a matter of regret that the Minister is not prepared to move on this matter as clearly there is a point of difference between us, although we are trying to reach the same objective: to ensure that the convention is properly implemented in this country and, more important, internationally. To try to achieve that, however, there must be openness, although the Government have moved substantially on what they were originally proposing as a result of representations received from a wide body of opinion.
6.45 pm
That same body of opinion--the Royal Society of Chemistry and other experts in this sector--is making the point about the need for an affirmative approach in relation to these two clauses. As I said, I am arguing not about the underlying principles of the clauses, but about the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of some of the details and of the way in which the legislation will apply. Although powers are vested in the Opposition to pray against negative orders, that puts the onus on the Opposition to oppose. The onus should, however, be on the Government to be open, but they appear to be unwilling to be open about the application of the regulations.
As it appears that I shall be unable to persuade the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 20 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Cohen:
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 17, line 9, after 'the', insert 'Convention and the'.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also No. 7, in clause 35, page 22, line 19, after 'Convention', insert 'and its annexes'.
Mr. Cohen:
I am happy to move my amendment No. 3, which is linked to amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 3 relates to clause 25, and amendment No. 7 to clause 35.
The amendments that I have tabled are mainly probing amendments, to obtain information from the Minister, or tidying-up amendments. Amendment No. 3 falls into the category of a tidying-up amendment. In one of those clauses, the convention is mentioned, but not the annexes to the convention; in the other, the verification annex is mentioned, but not the convention. I have tabled amendments that link the two, so that, on the face on the Bill, it would say, "the Convention and the annexes".
That relates to amendment No. 3 and the rights of entry for inspection purposes, which is tied up with article IX of the convention. Clause 35 gives the Minister powers to amend the Act if an amendment to the convention is subsequently agreed to by the various parties to it.
The amendment refers to both the convention and the annexes. It would stop anyone using the legislation as a loophole, perhaps, to avoid inspection. They could say that it related only to the convention and not to the annexes. It might also prevent any future legal dispute over that matter if the two were put together. It is a simple tidying-up amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Mr. Dalyell:
What is the Government's attitude to generic licensing? If the Minister would rather deal with that when we come to schedule 1 or later in his brief I should be prepared to wait. However, I have put down a marker now because generic licensing is important.
Mr. Oppenheim:
I shall do my best to answer that, although it is not directly related to the clause or the amendment. We shall consider it where it is sensible and within the bounds of the convention. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could expect me to say any more about that issue. If he would like to discuss the matter at some future time, I should be happy to do so.
I appreciate the spirit of helpfulness with which the amendment was moved, but, with respect, amendments Nos. 3 and 7 are based on a misunderstanding. The articles of the convention place certain obligations on state parties. The verification annex itself defines the verification procedures, and that contains the rights of the inspection teams. Article 17 of the convention makes it clear that all references to it include its verification annex, with all the powers and rights of the inspection teams. Consequently, a reference to both would be basically confusing and unnecessary, because the reference to the verification text as it stands is correct.
The same applies to amendment No. 7, which introduces a reference to the annexes to the convention in subsection 1 of the clause. The reference is again unnecessary, because article 17 of the convention states that the annexes form an integral part of the convention. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he moved the amendments, but, with respect, they are unnecessary.
Mr. Dalyell:
I understand the Minister's answer on generic licensing, but the mind boggles at having to license every individual chemical, because that would be a gargantuan task. I suspect that, at the end of the day, generic licensing will have to be accepted.
Mr. Oppenheim:
I shall try my best to respond to that. Licensing applies only to the most harmful and dangerous, and quite often complex, chemicals that are licensed, rather than to the reporting requirements. We are dealing here with chemical substances that are not used by many organisations, but obviously we have to try to look after the interests of those organisations that legitimately use them. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point, and if it is possible to be helpful in the context of generic licensing and stay within the terms of the convention, I assure him that we shall certainly look at that.
Mr. Cohen:
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation that the convention also covers the annexes. Hopefully, there will be no loopholes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Cohen:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, page 18, line 24, at end insert--
During an inspection, it is vital that the correct information is presented to the inspection team. The Bill would not make the giving of false or misleading statements an offence, and that is wrong. Clause 26(1)(c) covers only physical obstruction, and does not cover false or misleading statements.
I have looked up a couple of Acts in which this issue is raised. Section 33(1)(a) of the Food Safety Act 1990 refers to a person who
Section 35(1)(a) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 refers to any person who
'(d) knowingly makes a false or misleading statement to any member of the inspection team or of the in-country escort, or the observer, in the conduct of that inspection in accordance with the verification annex.'.
I am quite keen on this amendment, which is about offences in connection with inspections. At the moment, there are three main categories of offence--refusing to comply; interfering with any object, for example a container; or wilfully obstructing. There should be a fourth category, to deal with someone who knowingly makes a false or misleading statement to any member of the inspection team or to the in-country escort or the observer during the conduct of that inspection in accordance with the verification annex.
"intentionally obstructs any person acting in the execution of this Act;".
That covers wilful obstruction. Section 33(2)(a) of that same Act refers to someone who
"furnishes information which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular;".
Plainly, earlier legislation drew the distinction between wilful obstruction and the furnishing of false information. That means that the distinction has been recognised by the Government.
"intentionally obstructs an inspector or other person in the exercise of any powers conferred by section 31,".
That again relates to wilful obstruction, but section 35(1)(b) says that a person who
"refuses or without reasonable excuse fails to provide facilities or assistance or any information or to permit any inspection reasonably required by an inspector or other person under that section,
shall be guilty of an offence."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |