| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: While it is instructive and reassuring to know that, under clause 4(7), no constable shall search someone of the opposite sex, what recourse does a private individual have against the improper use of powers contained in clause 5? If the answer is that there is no formal recourse against an inappropriate use of the clause, how has the Minister been able to satisfy himself that the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998?
Mr. Page: It is a matter of deep regret to me that I am not the Minister in control of these matters. If I were, I am sure we would have proceeded with sweetness and light, without all of the concerns expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall touch fleetingly on that subject later; I am sure that the Minister will give crystal-clear answers that will satisfy everybody, and we will all live happily ever after.
There are questions which need answering. The Bill extends the powers of the Secretary of State to require information or records to be kept. Where it is suspected that offences may have been committed under the Bill, it will give his authorised officers and inspectors from the IAEA enhanced rights of entry to the premises and business of corporations, and even into the homes of private individuals, in search of information. That extends even to the colonies of the UK.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain precisely to what range of installations the record-keeping requirements set out in clause 2 will apply. Some facilities, such as the nuclear reprocessing facilities at Sellafield or the nuclear power stations at Dungeness or Bradwell, are obvious. It is unclear how far university research facilities may be affected. Cambridge university was recently fined a small amount for losing track of nuclear material handled in its laboratories. I assume--the Minister can correct me if I am wrong--that the Bill will apply to university facilities.
Will the Minister discuss the cost implications of the new requirements? He has fallen into the trap of dismissing the sums of money involved as small ones. That shows that the Government do not understand business. As the Bill passed through the other place, we were told:
- The cost to small businesses involved in manufacturing or consultancy work which would be caught by the proposed legislation would be in the order of a few thousand pounds per year.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 777.]
What requirements will the record-keeping organisation have to meet? Guidance will be issued by the DTI's safeguards office following discussions between the IAEA and the Government. New recording procedures may be necessary, but the Government have given little indication of the period over which such novel demands might be introduced. The House can reasonably ask for that information before we accept clause 2.
From the point of view of the small business--the Conservative party is the small business man's friend--we know that the extra burdens and duties imposed by new regulations will mean that, instead of getting on with running a business, small business men or women will be consigned to filling in lots of forms to satisfy the Government's insatiable desire for information.
Dr. Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman name for me one or two firms that have ever complained about the onerous burden that he so beautifully describes?
Mr. Maclean: They have not seen the regulations yet.
Mr. Page: The voices off mean that I need offer no response to that. May I remind the Minister of what I have just said? His Department has given little indication of the period over which novel demands may be introduced.
What extra compliance will be required? Until businesses know that, they cannot know whether to complain. The Minister is putting the cart before the horse. I have absolutely no doubt that when some organisations read the new demands, they will say, "Not another burden on business; we can add it to the record of 1999 when more burdens were placed on businesses than in any other year of this country's existence."I shall move on because I do not wish to be accused of delaying matters. May I request further information on the requirements of clause 2(7)? What will the Minister's legal advisers regard as a "reasonable" excuse by a person who fails to comply with a notice requiring certain records to be kept or retained? I recently served on the Committee that considered the Postal Services Bill, in which the word "reasonable" was discussed several times, but I am still waiting for the Minister in charge of that Bill to produce a definition. What would or would not be justifiable as an excuse? Would a failure by the safeguards officer of the DTI to supply a copy of guidance be an excuse?
I am also interested in the regulations that the Secretary of State may make under clause 3, which has one of those lovely, cryptic openings so beloved of parliamentary draftsmen. It states:
- The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description and to give such supplementary particulars as may be so specified.
After several hours of trying to work out what that provision meant, I decided that, in plain language, it puts the onus on individuals and organisations to identify themselves to the Secretary of State. However, if they are not aware that they should be thus identified--if individuals have not been informed by their employers that they fall into that category--how are those with only a peripheral involvement in such matters to proceed? How will they be clearly identified? Will every junior lab technician at nuclear power plants be included? It would be helpful if the Minister could put some practical flesh on that point in his reply. Obviously, the more extensive his response now, the less will be the need for further debate and questioning on other occasions. Any information gathered about such individuals or organisations must be passed on to the IAEA according to subsection (2)(a) of the clause. What security procedures has the Department agreed with the IAEA to ensure that such information remains confidential? Will the Minister assure us that the agency's procedures are as good--if not better--than those operating in the UK?
Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend as astonished as I am by the fact that the United Kingdom will sign that important protocol--if the Bill is passed--but that countries such as the Ukraine, North Korea, Libya, Israel, India, Pakistan, Belarus, Iraq and Iran have gone nowhere near it?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend again makes an important point. Not only am I not the Minister in charge of the Bill and thus unable to answer such questions--as I said before--but I am not in charge of all the countries that he mentioned. I hope that when all our questions are answered and we sign the protocol, we can encourage,
by example, some of those countries to tread the path of righteousness and truth so as to bring a little security and stability to the world.
Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend referred to righteousness and truth. Is he therefore impressed by the fact that the Holy See has signed up to the additional protocol?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend has upset me, because I had planned to devote a considerable part of my short introduction to the splendid example set by the Holy See in the matter. I am not too sure about its nuclear capability and capacity.
Mr. Robathan: The ultimate deterrent.
Mr. Page: The Holy See offers a splendid and commendable example to which I hope that the Minister will draw attention in his remarks.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): A different sort of missal.
Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, rather than making remarks from a sedentary position, I--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been too many sedentary interventions. I remind the House that the subject is extremely serious.
Mr. Page: Thank you for your support and protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am a firm supporter of nuclear power. It is one of the cleanest forms of energy and it should be more widely used in this country. However, because of the way in which that power can be corrupted and wrongly used, it is vital that information about it does not pass into the wrong hands--certainly not to members of active terrorist organisations.
I can think of no reasonable objection to creating powers to enable the Secretary of State to obtain information or records that have been withheld or not supplied and are required under the notice that he has issued. It is not clear why the power of entry in clause 4 to search for information that should have been supplied to the Secretary of State should be exercised at any reasonable hour.
Again, that lovely word "reasonable" is used, and I hope that the Minister will explain what that means. What is reasonable? Is it reasonable to enter business premises or a private dwelling between 7 am and 11 pm but not after 11 pm? Is the dawn raid no more? Will there no longer be a knock at the door at 5.30 am? I would be grateful if the Minister--who can seek advice from all his sources--could advise us what is meant by reasonable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), ever conscious of the need to have balance in our lives, has already pointed out the difficulties of providing officers of each sex to do a search. Every search team will need a woman police constable so that the job can be done properly.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |