| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise to give general support to the amendment proposed by my noble friend and to comment in particular on the interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Of course, when one examines the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is relevant to our discussions today, I believe that one must conclude that the Bill did not contemplate a wartime situation. I suspect that in such a situation it would be difficult to apply the Act as drafted. It is also worth noting that in that Act some of the racially aggravated assaults carry penalties of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Therefore, long sentences are envisaged in that area.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I admit that until the short speeches we have just heard I was not entirely clear about the purpose of the amendment. If there is to be argument about the penalty increase from two years to seven years, frankly, that is a different ball game. I do not think that that was debated either in Committee or on Report.
If the issue is trying to strike out any reference in the Bill to religious hatred rather than seeking to argue that there should be a difference in sentencing between two elements of the same offence, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that should the provisions in what was Clause 39 (the offence of incitement to religious hatred) not be included in the Bill on Royal Assent, the reference in what is now Clause 39 (incitement penalties) will be removed as a primary change. It will be like renumbering the pages. An amendment will not be needed for that to be done. It will be taken out automatically.
Other noble Lords raised the issue of the increase in maximum penalty from two years to seven years. I understand that in 1998—I do not have the details of the case; it was not in Northern Ireland but in England—the judiciary complained that two years was too low. I shall write to the noble Lord with details of the sentences in the particular issue he raised. We want to send a signal; there is no question of that. It is not for me to criticise the judiciary and the sentences passed within the range provided. Maximum sentences are not always used. Discretion is given to the courts. We believe that it is entirely sensible that, as is the case in Northern Ireland, if there is to be an offence of inciting religious or racial hatred, the penalty for the offence under either of those elements should be the same and should be set at seven years. We must accept that legislation for the crime of religious hatred already exists. I shall write to noble Lords. A fair point was raised about how much the penalty is used. I understand that there were complaints from the judiciary two or three years ago.
As regards Clause 36, I have nothing to add to what was said, if anything was said, during the passage of the Bill. I do not recall this matter ever being raised. Therefore, I understood that to have the consent of the whole House.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he realise that one good reason for not having disproportionately long maximum sentences is that they seem unfair to the man or woman in the street? Therefore, juries may be reluctant to convict in such cases.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, for obvious reasons, because of the time I spent in the other place, I have never served on a jury. All I can say is that that is up to juries and the courts. The courts are given discretion. It is up to them to use it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who assures the House, as I had hoped, that these matters will be taken into account automatically by the parliamentary draftsman if the structure of the Bill remains as it is when it comes back to us from another place. For that, I am grateful. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it was not my purpose to question the seven years' maximum sentence. If I have a purpose I table it in an amendment. In a curious way, although it is excessive, I support the seven years' maximum penalty because it is a maximum. I cannot imagine it being imposed by any sane judge or magistrates unless there is a serious situation—at times there are—which warrants it, and it serves as an effective deterrent. That is why I have not questioned it.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hylton, Lord Avebury and Lord Monson, for their contributions. I fully understand their reservations, which no doubt will be taken into account. I also thank my noble friend
Lord Dixon-Smith for the trouble he has taken to make such a well informed contribution to this small debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Prohibition of disclosures in relation to nuclear security]:
Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 8:
- Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 was not moved in an attempt to show the Minister that we are approaching this matter with, to use his favourite word, proportionality. In looking after the nuclear industry, it is important to recognise the threat posed by international terrorism, either by direct attack on nuclear installations or by attempts from terrorists to gain access to nuclear material.
The dilemma is that there is a continuing national debate about the role of nuclear power and its peaceful use in our energy mix. It seems to many that the Bill as drafted could restrict genuine debate about the nuclear industry. It could also restrict the public from having legitimate information about the nuclear industry. Amendment No. 8 attempts to get right the balance in terms of public interest. It also attempts to recognise that there may be times when the public interest in being aware of various developments outweighs the security powers given in the Bill. This is simply a public interest defence written into the Bill. In terms of joined-up government, the amendment also raises the question of how much the Bill restricts and prevents the public having access to information to which they will have a right when the Freedom of Information Act comes into force in January 2005.
On consideration, we felt that Amendment No. 7, which we have not moved, tilted the balance between security and the right to know in the wrong direction. However, we remain convinced that Amendment No. 8 is one which the Government could accept in the genuine public interest of having an informed debate about the future of the nuclear industry.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, this is a reasonable amendment. It is certainly in line with the atmosphere of freedom of information. These Benches support it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I declare an interest since I live within about 100 yards of a route regularly used by a train carrying nuclear matter. This is an exceptionally well-drafted amendment. Indeed, it is one of the best drafted amendments in the Bill. It raises a difficult test, but that is because it is the real test. It is the test of what we actually need to know before we disclose information about the transport of nuclear material.
I share my noble friend's concern about access to nuclear material and his concern about the risk. But there is also the concern, sometimes misplaced—I have been assured by expert opinion that in my own case it was largely misplaced—about the safety of people living near a line where nuclear material is transported. But those matters should be balanced against each other. It is a necessity. If we do not try to balance them against each other, sooner or later, there will be a situation where public protests will force us to do so. So why not do it voluntarily before we have to?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, there have been two cases in the Russian Federation, one of which I mentioned the other day—that of Grigory Pasko—and the other one is that of Alexsandr Nikitin, in which this very issue has been brought before the courts. Chronologically, the first of the cases, Alexsandr Nikitin, a former captain in the Soviet Navy published a report through Bellona in Norway concerning nuclear materials which were stored in the Kola Peninsula in the North West of Russia.
Mr Nikitin showed from his researches that vast quantities of surplus reactors and redundant nuclear material were stored in the Kola Peninsula without proper safeguards as to the dissemination of radioactivity and radioactive material which might arise from the lack of care devoted to its retention. Mr Nikitin was charged with very serious offences in the Russian courts.
Now there is another case which has arisen in relation to the Soviet Pacific Fleet of a similar nature. Both Captain Nikitin and Mr Pasko pleaded in their defence that the public interest of disclosure was an important factor in releasing the information, although they denied that they had breached any security rules.
It is impossible to underestimate the importance of the first case—that of the Kola Peninsula—because if this material was released into the ocean or the atmosphere it could have immense consequences, not only for the whole of Europe but for the world as a whole. Most people thought that Captain Nikitin had performed an important and invaluable public service in making sure that this information got into the public domain.
I am horrified to think that a prosecution could now take place in the United Kingdom of someone who genuinely wanted to blow the whistle on some practice that was unsafe and was harmful, not just to the people of the United Kingdom but perhaps far wider than that. The Irish are an obvious example because they at present are in dispute with us over the release of radioactive material into the Irish Sea. People who genuinely believe that what they are doing in releasing information is for the benefit not just of Britain but of the whole of mankind could be prosecuted. I hope that the Minister accepts my noble friend's amendment.
X(2A) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that the public interest in disclosure of the information relating to the transportation of nuclear material outweighs the public interest in not prejudicing the security of that material."
5.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page