§ Lords amendment: No. 10B, in lieu of Lords amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed, after clause 6, to insert the following new clause—Protection of certain freedoms
- (1) The Secretary of State may not make a control order which has the effect of prohibiting or regulating any of the following activities
- (a) the communication of information in the ordinary course of scientific research,
- (b) the making of information generally available to the public, or
- (c) the communication of information that is generally available to the public,
- (2) The question whether any such interference is necessary shall be determined by the Secretary of State by reference to the circumstances prevailing at the time the order is made and having considered the reasons for seeking to control the activity in question and the need to respect the freedom to carry on that activity."
§ 7.3 pm
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 10C and the Government motion to agree thereto.
§ Nigel GriffithsHon. Members will recall that on 24 June, the House disagreed with a number of Lords amendments that aimed to provide protection for academic freedoms, but would, in fact, have opened several extremely damaging loopholes in the Bill. At the same time, the Government introduced in the other place a clause that was designed to provide explicit protections for certain freedoms which are of particular concern to the academic community. However, the Opposition considered that the clause did not go far enough to protect those freedoms.
In spite of those differences, it was clear that all concerned—the Government, the Opposition and the universities' representative bodies—shared essentially the same aim: to find a way to provide protections that would prevent a future Government using the powers in the Bill in ways that could damage freedoms that are important to the academic community and others, and at the same time ensuring that the Bill provides the Government with the powers they need for an effective export control regime. Necessarily, any such solution should not contain loopholes that could be exploited by the unscrupulous.
Discussions were held with the Opposition parties and Universities UK to see whether we could reach agreement on the text of a revised clause that all were content would protect the freedoms about which concern had been expressed, while avoiding the creation of loopholes in the Bill. I am pleased to say that we were able to obtain agreement, and the amendment proposed in the Lords message reflects that agreement.
1046 The revised clause that the amendment would insert deals with two of the concerns that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) expressed about the clause it would replace. The first was the issue of interchanges of unpublished research between academics. The new clause, in subsection (1)(a), introduces a reference to a new activity to be protected by the clause, namely
the communication of information in the ordinary course of scientific research".That is in addition to the activities of publishing information or communicating published information. The House will have noted that the clause included in the message from the other place applies to all those engaged in scientific research. Thus it meets one of the Government's criticisms of the Opposition's new clause with which this House disagreed on 24 June.The second concern voiced by the hon. Member for Salisbury was that the previous clause required the Secretary of State to consider only the matter of academic freedom, and no more. While the Government did not accept that that was a fair description of the clause's effect, we did accept that there was scope to strengthen the requirements placed on the Secretary of State. The revised clause therefore states that it is for the Secretary of State to determine whether interference in any of the freedoms described by the clause is necessary in the light of
the circumstances prevailing at the time … and having considered the reasons for seeking to control the activity in question and the need to respect the freedom to carry on that activity.That formulation in the clause makes it explicit that the Secretary of State must form his or her view of the need for the interference in the light of all the relevant facts and other surrounding circumstances. Those will include international obligations and commitments undertaken by the United Kingdom. It also makes explicit the balancing exercise that must be carried out by reference to those circumstances and the need to control the activity and to respect the freedom to carry on that activity. This means that the Secretary of State will have to identify the ways in which particular proposed controls are likely to impinge on the freedom to communicate in the ways that are specified in subsection (1), and the reasons for that interference. He or she will then have to decide whether that control is necessary.
These procedures will require the Secretary of State to consider the proportionality of the proposed controls to be able to conclude that the degree of interference is no more than is necessary to meet the identified reasons. This places a stronger duty on the Secretary of State in terms of the requirements on him or her to ensure that the freedoms described in the clause are not interfered with except for good reason and, where necessary, when drawing up control orders. Therefore, the procedures give the court more ability to strike down unacceptable provisions in a control order than does the clause that is being replaced.
At the same time, the proposed clause avoids creating the sort of loopholes in the Bill that the Opposition amendments would have created and with which the House disagreed on 24 June. I am pleased to say that, in the light of the agreement reached with the Opposition and Universities UK on the revised clause, the Lords have not insisted on their amendments with which the House disagreed. I therefore invite the House to agree to both amendments as proposed by the Lords in lieu of Lords amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed.
§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)The Opposition wish to agree with the Lords and with the Minister. We are 1047 delighted by the outcome of sensible negotiations, which have demonstrated that Parliament can work in both Houses when it tries. I think that the outcome has been widely welcomed by the academic community. For the reasons that the Minister has explained, we think that academic freedom will now be guaranteed—as far as these things can be guaranteed. That is because a Secretary of State could no longer make arbitrary decisions that could not be challenged in the courts. We warmly welcome that.
These matters have been through the determination of many Members in both Houses. When my noble Friend Lady Miller of Hendon introduced her amendment in the other place, which was designed to protect and preserve academic freedom, she was supported by Cross Benchers and by Lady Sharp of Guildford for the Liberal Democrats. In its present form, the amendment is accepted by Universities UK, which represents the vice-chancellors, by Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, who has worked hard on these matters, and by the Association of University Teachers. We are glad to come to such a happy conclusion.
I must pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Lady Miller. I record my gratitude to Lord May of Oxford, the distinguished president of the Royal Society, who has similarly worked extremely hard on these matters. I pay tribute also to the Information Policy Research Foundation and to Dr. Ross Anderson of Cambridge university, as well as to Mr. Nicholas Bowen, who is a solicitor. He is a member of the electronic law committee of the Law Society. Similarly, I pay tribute to others who wish to remain anonymous. I record my gratitude to Professor David Vincent, the deputy vice-chancellor of Keele university, whose common sense has illuminated the argument.
A happy conclusion has been reached, and the Opposition are happy to speed the Bill on its way. We are grateful to the Government for seeing sense and coming to a happy conclusion.
§ Alan Howarth (Newport, East)Happily, this is not the occasion for a substantial speech. I want to express my gratitude to the Government, and in particular to the Minister responsible for science, for heeding the legitimate concerns that were expressed by Universities UK and by more and more in the academic world as they became aware of the possible consequences of the legislation as previously drafted in terms of jeopardising academic freedom.
Those of us who raised concerns during parliamentary consideration of the Bill—I speak for myself, but I imagine that this applies to us all—had no desire to frustrate the Government in their effort, vital in every sense of the word, to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I recognise that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government had no malign or, as the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), has just put it, unscrupulous intentions towards academic freedom. However, it is always a prudent principle for Parliament not to confer on Governments unfettered powers that may—much more often as a result of a fit of absence of mind than of any deliberate intention—be abused.
After all, Departments are focused on their particular departmental preoccupations. Other Departments do not like to interfere with them, and perhaps do not even notice 1048 the consequences of the policies of a neighbouring Department until it is too late, when some damage has been done. Academic freedom is fragile, and in the past Whitehall has from time to time been a little crude, even cavalier, in its attitude to academic freedom. However, academic freedom is crucial to a liberal society and to the advancement of knowledge.
It is therefore to the Government's credit that they have listened and recognised that there was a legitimate problem. They took it seriously and acted on it. They have revised the proposed legislation to strike a balance that we can regard as satisfactory between those imperatives that were liable to be in tension, the Government's desire to protect our lives and our security, and the fundamentally important need to preserve academic freedom.
We should acknowledge that the main debates on this issue occurred in the other place. The other place is yet not much reformed, but on this occasion at least, and from time to time on other occasions, it has been more vigilant for our freedoms than we have been in this place. I conclude by noting that it is important that further reforms of the other place do not impair its capacity to exercise that vigilance, by strengthening the grip of the party machines, for example.
§ Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)I endorse the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and those of the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). I appreciate that the Government have listened and that we now have an improved piece of legislation. The amendment that has been agreed to is a model of brevity and clarity compared with what went before.
We must praise the effort that has been made in the past few weeks. As the hon. Member for Salisbury acknowledged, the campaign was a cross-party effort. I acknowledge the role that Lady Sharp of Guildford played from the Liberal Democrat Benches in another place. She fought for academic freedom and then helped to forge a compromise with the universities and the Government.
It has always been our view on the Liberal Democrat Benches that, in this instance, academic freedom had to be qualified. There had to be some qualification because military technology transmits itself through ideas as much as through hardware. I recall one of my distinguished academic constituents—he was engaged in material science—telling me about the evening when he lost his innocence in that field when working late at night. He went to the laboratories and saw one of his Iraqi PhD students making off with key documents from the department. That is the sort of practice that the proposed legislation is designed to guard against.
One of the positive outcomes of the exercise is that we shall see the passage of the Bill into law. We welcome that. It is half a loaf, or even a third of a loaf, rather than a whole loaf, but it is welcome none the less. We regret that the Minister did not listen to our suggestions on sustainable development, on brokerage and on parliamentary scrutiny. However, we welcome the overall thrust of the Bill. We also welcome the compromises that have been reached on academic freedom.
§ Nigel GriffithsI am pleased that we are all agreed that the text provides proper protection for important freedoms while 1049 avoiding the creation of loopholes. I think that Members on both sides of the House agree that the Bill is to be welcomed, because it provides powers that are needed for a more effective and comprehensive export regime, while at the same time providing for greater accountability to Parliament for the use of the powers contained within it, as Lord Scott of Foscote recommended.
I look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent shortly. This is landmark legislation and I am grateful to all Members, Peers and others who have a strong interest in these matters. I am proud of what we are achieving, and I urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Norman Baker (Lewes)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A parliamentary written question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) was answered today. It relates to the record of ministerial travel over the past 12 months. Some of us believe that such questions should have been answered throughout the parliamentary Session, but in any case they have all been collated for today, the last day that Parliament is sitting before the recess.
The answer is thin, and the detail is contained in a document which, we are led to believe, is in the House of Commons Library. Ten minutes ago I went to the Library again, and staff there confirm that no such document has been received, some four hours after the original parliamentary question was answered. Indeed, the Library staff are in some doubt as to whether the document will be received today, which leaves open the prospect that the House will be in recess when the detail becomes available to hon. Members, although I understand that, in typical style, the media have copies of the document.
Is it not an affront to Parliament first, that the questions are not answered regularly throughout the Session, and secondly, that the information that which is now available, apparently, is not in the Library, contrary to the implication of the parliamentary answer given today, and may not be there until the House is in recess? Surely it is not beyond the wit of the authorities to ensure that documents are sent on time—electronically, perhaps.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would raise this matter and put it on the record. Obviously, the Chair has no responsibility for the wider issue that he raises about the way in which parliamentary questions are answered. I refer to what Mr. Speaker has said on a number of occasions, and his hopes that Members' questions will be answered as promptly as possible. If the hon. Gentleman is correct about the sequence of events today, there would certainly appear to have been a slip-up, which is a serious one. As the matter has been raised, Government Front-Bench Members will have notice of it. I hope that the omission can be put right as quickly as possible.