| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
EU Intergovernmental Conference: Representation
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the answer by Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 18 October (HL Deb, cols. 701–3), whether they agreed that the views of those who do not wish the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Union should be properly represented among the United Kingdom's representatives to the convention which will prepare the agenda for the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2004.[HL1016]
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on 18 October [Official Report, cols. 701–3]. Her Majesty's Government are considering how best to ensure appropriate parliamentary representation.
IRA: State Funeral
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What representations they have made to the Government of the Irish Republic about the appropriateness, given recent global events, of a recent re-burial of 10 members of the IRA in a state funeral on 14 October.[HL833]
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: None.
Fireworks
Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What action they are taking to reduce the risk or the nuisance arising from the use of fireworks; and what advice they have received about this matter from the police, health organisations and local authorities.[HL1032]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): We have launched a campaign to highlight to consumers the dangers of fireworks and to provide information on how to reduce the risk and nuisance from their use. We have regular contacts with representatives of the police, health organisations and local authorities on this issue.
Abortion Act 1967
Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their response to the recent statement from the Disability Rights Commission that Section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended), in authorising abortion up to birth on grounds of handicap, is incompatible with the principle that disabled and able-bodied people should be treated equally; and whether they plan to introduce legislation to repeal Section 1(1)(d).[HL1137]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The statement from the Disability Rights Commission highlighted the importance of ensuring that the context in which parents choose whether to have a child should be one in which disability and non-disability are valued equally and that parents receive comprehensive balanced information and guidance on disability, the rights of disabled people and on the support available. We are supportive of these aims and
understand that the Disability Rights Commission plans to discuss this matter further with the Government, the medical professions and other relevant organisations. The statement indicates that addressing these issues should be given priority over any consideration of amendment to the Abortion Act.It is important to note that under Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 disability is not the only grounds for permitting abortion up to birth. The Act also authorises abortion up to birth if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.
It is accepted parliamentary practice that proposals for changes in the law on abortion have come from Back-Bench Members and that decisions are made on the basis of free votes. The Government have no plans to change the law on abortion.
Burden of Proof
Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the remarks by the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2 November (H.L. Deb., col. 1705), to which sections of which Acts he was referring when he said that he had discovered 10 examples of the reversal of the burden of proof in Conservative legislation.[HL1181]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The following table lists 10 examples from enactments passed between 1979 and 1997 where a person charged with an offence can establish a defence if he proves a certain fact. The list is not necessarily exhaustive.
It is not strictly correct to say that this reverses the burden of proof. The accused will have a full defence if he can prove the ingredients of the defence on a balance of probabilities which the prosecution must rebut if he is to be convicted. The burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution. This also applies to the similar provisions in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
| Act | Offence | Defence |
| Anatomy Act 1984 Section 11 | Unlicensed and unauthorised carrying out of anatomical examinations or possession of body parts. | "where a person is charged . . . it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence". |
| Registered Homes Act 1984 | Various eg carrying on home without being registered. | "in any proceedings for an offence under this Act it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake . . . or some other cause beyond his control and that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence . . .". |
| Consumer Protection Act 1987 Section 10 | Supply, offer or agreement to supply or exposure or possession for supply of any goods failing to comply with general safety requirement. | "in proceedings . . . under this section it shall be a defence for that person . . . to show that he reasonably believed that the goods would not be used or consumed in the United Kingdom". |
| Children Act 1989 Section 78 | Employment of person in connection with provision of day care who is disqualified from caring for children. | "a person . . . shall not be guilty of an offence . . . if he proves that he did not know and had no reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he was employing was disqualified". |
| Food Safety Act 1990 Sections 8 & 22 | Selling offering, exposing for or advertising for sale food unfit for human consumption. | "in proceedings for an offence . . . consisting of the advertisement for sale of any food, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove: (a) that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements; and (b) that he received the advertisement in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence under that provision". |
| Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 Section 41 | Prohibitions in connection with the storage and use of embryos. | "it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove . . . that he took all such steps as were reasonable and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence". |
| Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 Section 4 | Failure to display notice displaying the prohibition on sale of tobacco products to persons under 16. | "it shall be a defence for a person charged . . . to prove he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence". |
| Clean Air Act 1993 Section 20 | Emission of smoke from a chimney in a smoke control area. | "it shall be a defence to prove that the alleged emission was not caused by the use of any fuel other than an authorised fuel". |
| Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 61 | Failure of trespasser to leave land when directed to do so and to return within 3 months. | "it shall be a defence for the accused to show . . . that he was not trespassing or . . . he had a reasonable excuse for failing to leave the land . . . or as the case may be again entering the land as a trespasser." |
| Noise Act 1996 Section 7 | Emission of noise above permitted levels following service of a warning notice. | "it is a defence . . . to show that there was a reasonable excuse for the act in question . . .". |
NHS Information Network
Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 5 November (WA 4):
(a) what minimum functionality will be provided for all clinical staff by way of desktop access by April 2002; and
(b) how many clinicians will have exclusive desktop access; how many will share desktop access between two or more clinicians; and how many will share desktop access with non-clinicians.[HL1226]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The minimum functionality provided is for basic e-mail, browsing and access to national applications.
Our target of enabling desktop access for all clinical staff in National Health Service trusts by March 2002 is well on the way to being met. Indications are that clinicians will have access appropriate to their local working practice by the target date.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page