| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to welcome the new amendment. This has been a long haul. Many people have been involved in lengthy negotiations. I am delighted, as the Minister mentioned, that we have recognition in the amendment that academic research involves more than just research for publication. A great deal of research does not see the light of day. If the research is a scientific process that is so because one tests ideas. Sometimes they test right and sometimes they test wrong. One cannot do anything about that.
I very much welcome the fact that the amendment writes on the face of the Bill the need to consider the proportionality of any proposed control and the requirement that the Secretary of State should make explicit—when he considers it necessary to impose any such control—his reasons for doing so. Finally, I welcome the fact that his decision can be subject to judicial review and may be challenged in the courts. All these are excellent moves. I am delighted to see them in the amendment.
I pay tribute to those who have spent so much time working on this matter. I refer, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, from Universities UK, and my Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Roper. While I was busy with the Education Bill he carried on negotiations on the Bill for me. I thank also the many people who, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, have worked behind the scenes on the amendment. I refer to people such as Ross Anderson, Nicholas Bohm, Chris Felton at Universities UK and, last but not least—I suspect that this was the gentlemen who wished not to be named, but I think it is worth naming him— the noble
Baroness's husband. I know that he has had a great deal—he is present in the House—to do with the matter. I thank him warmly. So on behalf of these Benches, I just say that, yes, we welcome this new amendment and we shall be supporting it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I register an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury for tabling the amendment which, as all noble Lords have said, comes after huge efforts right across the Chamber. I am enormously grateful for all the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in order to bring forward the amendment. It is all the more admirable because she had health problems during the period. I am delighted to say that she has now recovered to her feisty self, as she has just demonstrated.
The work of the noble Baroness, along with the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the noble Lords, Lord May and Lord Oxburgh, and many others, has been vital in achieving what this House does best, which is reaching a workable solution. The amendment resolves what at first seemed an unbridgeable gap between the voices heard in this Chamber.
I am glad to say that the amendment does what I hoped for when I spoke on this issue in Committee. It provides a real level of protection for the academic community, for the teaching and research work carried out in our universities. Universities UK has been working on this subject since 1998. Universities UK's president, Professor Roderick Floud, argued for it when he appeared in front of the quadripartite committee in another place over a year ago. It is a matter on which we and our colleagues in the Association of University Teachers have been united.
Equally important, it does not do anything to weaken the export control regime which the Government seek to put in place. We at Universities UK listened to what my noble friend said in that respect. I am happy that our respective objectives have been met. The progress made since this House last considered these amendments is significant. I was very much of the view then that what my noble friend offered did not go anywhere near the guarantee for the academic community. As many of us said, the level of protection seemed to be unacceptably low. My noble friend disagreed. But by the same token, I know that my noble friend had considerable concerns about the amendment that we supported and which the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Sharp, tabled on Report.
Since then, I have had several fruitful meetings with my noble friend. We, together with others, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, now have an amendment which includes, most importantly for us, an objective test of whether any proposed controls are necessary, rather than one which depends on the Secretary of State satisfying him or herself that that is the case. That is the crucial concession, although one won with a few grey hairs—certainly at Universities UK—as negotiations reached fever pitch last week.
I therefore have no problem in lending my support to the amendment. I look forward to contributing to the consultation on the secondary legislation which will expand on this provision in the coming months.
Lord Moser: My Lords, it goes without saying that I was not privy to the behind the scenes discussions that have been taking place. Can the Minister clarify the last two lines of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause 10B? Can he explain what circumstances could possibly justify the Secretary of State prohibiting the communication of information that is generally available to the public; in other words, information that is already in the public domain?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I add my thanks to the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I believe that he has always had an ambition to be a parliamentary draftsman. On this occasion I hope that he feels he came as near to that as is possible without actually having the title.
The noble Lord, Lord Moser, asked in what circumstances the Secretary of State could ever consider interfering where the communication of information is generally available to the public? It is difficult to envisage what those circumstances might be. But there might be circumstances where the information was generally known but could not be got hold of by a particular country or a particular company which might make use of it to ill effect on other people.
It is difficult to envisage these circumstances. But, as we have just seen in the previous debate, situations occur where unexpected actions are required by the Secretary of State. One does not want to have a situation where primary legislation has to be introduced to deal with that.
The House has done much to improve the Bill. We have, in response to concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and others, made much clearer the respective roles of the schedule and guidance to be issued under the Bill. We put our continuing commitment to the issue of sustainable development beyond doubt by amending the Bill and putting a reference to sustainability on the face of the Bill.
Finally, I invite the House today to agree a new clause which will protect against risk that the powers in the Bill might be used in future to undermine academic freedoms.
I believe that valuable changes have been made in this House. Inevitably the Bill does not meet everyone's aspirations in full. But I think that all sides of the House will agree that this is a worthwhile Bill which provides a sound basis for a modern and effective export control regime. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, said at Second Reading that for the first time in some 50 years we will have constitutional and democratic respectability. He said that the Bill was thoroughly to be welcomed. I hope that, with the amendments which have been made, the House feels the same and will agree with him. I invite
the House not to insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.On Question, Motion agreed to.
4Page 2, line 9, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) HL Bill 96 53/12
4AThe Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because it is necessary to retain the power under Clause 2 to control the transfer of technology in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) and (d).
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6Clause 3, page 2 line 34, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of section (Academic Freedom),"
6AThe Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because Lords Amendment No. 16 makes more appropriate provision.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
10After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"Academic freedom
(1) Unless any form of restriction is permitted under or by virtue of any other Act, or is required by any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom or a Directive of the Council of the European Community, an order made under section 2 or 3 of this Act may not impose any control on—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page