| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that for the rule of law to prevail in this particular area, as in many other areas where people abuse the right of free speech and the right to demonstrate, more is required than the passing of legislation? Does he agree that the robust enforcement of the law by the police and deterrent sentencing by the courts are also required to make it clear that people who go beyond the rule of law are beyond the pale and that such behaviour is not acceptable in a democracy?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is evident that your Lordships' House shares those views. I
certainly do. We believe that the rule of law should be upheld; we believe in effective and firm police action. We have been unstinting in our support, particularly for Cambridgeshire Constabulary. We have provided the constabulary with extra funds, which have been used well. Important protection work has been undertaken with great vigilance and the constabulary is to be congratulated on the way in which it has policed that difficult situation at Huntingdon.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, is the fact that shares in Huntingdon Life Sciences Company are now not being dealt with by certain financial houses such as, I believe, Charles Schwab an indication of the Government's apparent failure in this area? Is that an indication that the rule of law has not been successfully upheld and that apparently respectable organisations are effectively being intimidated?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that we have been unstinting in our support. As I said earlier, only last week my right honourable friend the Home Secretary met with financial institutions to press them and to ensure that there is support for Huntingdon Life Sciences. It is in nobody's interests that financial institutions should withdraw their support from those lines of scientific investigation and inquiry. I believe that we must continue to give our support, and we want to work with everyone to ensure that they can operate effectively. It is in everyone's interests that they do so.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is this a case where we should use whatever pressure we have within the European Union to try to do something on a pan-European basis? The financial institution mentioned in my noble friend's question is, in fact, an Irish bank that has now withdrawn its support from Huntingdon Life Sciences, if the Financial Times is to be believed. Perhaps we should achieve a uniform approach to such issues, not necessarily just because of the Huntingdon Life Sciences case, but also for other companies involved in this necessary type of work in the pharmaceutical industry.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, ultimately it is for those financial institutions to make their own commercial decisions. The role of government is to encourage and to ensure that we provide the right level of support and commitment. In that regard, we have been doing all that we can. The noble Baroness makes an important point in relation to Europe. I congratulate her on her support for European institutions. I have no doubt that in working across Europe in this area we can bring extra pressure to bear so that we can protect the important work that organisations like Huntingdon Life Sciences carry out.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there may be areas in which unnecessary testing of animals takes place, particularly by some of the
pharmaceutical firms? Would it not strengthen our case if those were reduced, particularly those which damage the pharmaceutical industry?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have the statistics in front of me but my recollection is that testing on animals is at its lowest level since 1955. That is as a direct result of government policy. It is our desire to minimise the level of testing on animals and we have carried that through in government.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister realise that consultations and task forces are one thing but what is required is action?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not recall that the previous government were wanting in calling up task forces and taking joint ministerial action when they though that right. No doubt the noble Lord will make a case that it was action. I believe that we have been firm and resolute and have been taking action. That action is demonstrated by our commitment to four crucial changes in the current Criminal Justice and Police Bill which is before your Lordships' House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that last week, during the second day in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, it was pointed out to the Government that the head of the research centre at Huntingdon, who was attacked at the research centre, would have been protected had he been attacked at his own home but not at the research centre? Therefore, can the Government point out to the Home Secretary that that matter must be put right before the Bill returns to another place?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that ABH travels as an offence; I believe that it is an offence wherever it is committed. We have tried to ensure that Cambridgeshire Constabulary has more than adequate resources to deal with the problem at Huntingdon Life Sciences and we have done exactly that. The Bill tries to provide for an additional range of offences and penalties which can be applied where people pursue directors and so forth to their places of residence. We are intent on doing that and I understood that the noble Lord supported us in that.
Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Investigation
2.52 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How they intend to follow up the findings of the report of the investigation into Mirror Group Newspapers plc, published on 30th March.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and the relevant regulators are carefully considering what action should be taken in response to the inspector's findings.
On the question of possible director's disqualification against individuals whose conduct is criticised, legal advice is being taken before deciding on whether such proceedings are appropriate. Ministers hope to be in a position to make that decision as soon as possible.
The Independent Company Law Review Steering Group has also been asked to consider the issues raised in the report which are relevant to the work of the review and to make recommendations.
On other regulatory issues, liaison is continuing with the relevant regulatory bodies, including the Financial Services Authority, the Stock Exchange and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in order to ensure that, where appropriate, progress is made towards implementing the inspector's recommendations. Given the length of time it has taken to produce this report, the Government are keen to see rapid progress made, subject to a careful consideration of the complex issues involved.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is grave public disquiet about the whole course of the Maxwell affair and public reflection on the fact that effectiveness of the hoards of professionals involved in the affairs of Maxwell appears to have been in inverse ratio to the size of the frauds and the size of their fees?
Given that the report contains 101 recommendations, will the Government contemplate having an annual occasion on which this House and the public can be told what progress is being made with regard to each of those recommendations?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is an extremely complicated investigation which involved the interviewing of 180 witnesses. It has taken a long time to complete because it was broken up by the court cases which took place in the middle of it and the difficulties of getting Mr Kevin Maxwell to give evidence. In those circumstances, it has been carried in a timeframe with which one cannot argue and to a cost which is not unreasonable.
Of course, there are many lessons to be learnt and we shall pursue them as fast as possible. The inspectors suggest that a monitoring mechanism should be put in place to ensure that the recommendations are carried through. The department will examine how best that can be done.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the need for all inspectors to be representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry, as was the case in my day? Is it not required
by the present Administration that there should be an overall view of what the inspectors do, how they do it and when they do it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the inspectors have carried out the investigation perfectly appropriately in the circumstances. The fact that one of the inspectors became a High Court judge in no way slowed up the process. Certain questions need to be asked about the length such reviews take, which is why the Secretary of State has initiated an internal examination into whether Sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 can be speeded up while still giving careful consideration to the issues.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page