HL Deb 18 March 1996 vol 570 cc1071-5

3.1 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 33 [Annual reports by Secretary of State]:

Lord Peston moved the manuscript amendment: Page 22, line 6, at end insert— ("( ) In preparing the report the Secretary of State shall take appropriate advice. ( ) The criteria by which the Secretary of State shall be guided in preparing the report shall include the need to—

  1. (a) reassure Parliament and the public that the United Kingdom is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Convention,
  2. (b) state the way in which the Secretary of State is discharging his responsibilities under this Act, and
  3. (c) maintain an appropriate balance between the legitimate needs of transparency and commercial confidentiality in the provision of information in the report.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is only one amendment down for today's proceedings and, therefore, we have a long day ahead of us! The amendment is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. As noble Lords are aware, there is no basic dispute about the validity of the Chemical Weapons Bill or about,our great desire to see it on the statute book as soon as possible. The debates that we have had in your Lordships' House, both in Committee and today, concern detail and our hope to be able to improve it; or, as it has not been my desire in such matters to divide your Lordships' House, to get the Minister to place on record the Government's view on such matters which will then make the Bill more sensible without having to press amendments to a Division.

Frankly, the amendment arises out of a feeling of irritation as regards the Minister when we debated the matter earlier. That is most unusual for me in regard to my relationship with the noble and learned Lord. However, noble Lords will recall that the Government thought it important for there to be a report on how the Act, as it would then be, is working and whether it is achieving the ends that not only Her Majesty's Government but also the international community wish to see happen more generally in the area.

I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and I tabled a rather elaborate amendment on the matter on the last occasion. My feeling about the Minister's response at that time was that it was somewhat negative. I have tabled the current amendment in the hope that I shall be able to encourage the Minister to say something more positive in the area.

The report about which we are talking is meant to be useful. Indeed, the Government would not have agreed to having such a report if they did not think it would be useful. However, the word "useful" must certainly mean informative. As the amendment points out, there are at least two groups of people who need to be reassured about the chemical weapons convention and, therefore, the workings of the Chemical Weapons Bill. One is Parliament—that is, both the other place and indeed, more importantly, your Lordships' House; the second group is the public outside in all their different dimensions.

One aspect of the public interest was raised by the Daily Mail in its "Night and Day" section which seemed to find that it was altogether too easy to acquire chemicals which could be converted into lethal weapons. I shall not rehearse all the arguments regarding whether we should have a list which tells everyone what potentially dangerous chemicals are, so that they know what to go out and try to buy. We certainly agree that that would be going too far; but, on the other hand, one definitely needs a certain amount of transparency in the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and I have rather changed tack here. Instead of putting down in detail exactly what ought to be in the annual report—largely we were right to do so, although not entirely—we have outlined the criteria by which the annual report would be judged. That is the exact purpose of the amendment. In particular, it refers to the point emphasised quite rightly by the Minister; namely, that in many of these cases we are dealing with matters of great commercial confidentiality. It certainly would not be my intention to undermine the economic viability of any business by revealing its legitimate commercial secrets. But, on the other hand, there is a public interest in transparency.

In that connection I am happy to say that the Royal Society of Chemistry which has advised me and the Chemical Industries Association, with which I have been in touch and which has sent me briefing material, both take my amendment to mean that the annual report should—and, implicitly, could—provide transparency while safeguarding commercial confidentiality. The Royal Society of Chemistry and the association recognise that the national authority is not expected to be the sole source of expert advice to the Secretary of State, which again confirms what the Minister said on the last occasion when we discussed the matter. Both the society and the association believe that there should be consultation with appropriate expertise, which should include trade associations and professional and learned bodies, together with individual industrial and academic expertise. The purpose of the amendment is to lead us to all those things.

In moving the amendment, what I most hope for is a more positive response on the part of the Minister, by which I mean more positive than he was able to be on the last occasion. That would certainly underline the importance which we all attach to the legislation and, as I said, it would reassure the relevant interested parties. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, we have before us an extraordinary amendment, especially as regards the first two lines, which read: In preparing the report the Secretary of State shall take appropriate advice". Surely every Secretary of State in preparing every report takes what he believes to be appropriate advice. It is very odd indeed suddenly to put such a provision forward as an amendment to the legislation. I can hardly understand what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is playing at, other than the fact that his desperate need to find something that he could propose to amend has, perhaps, led him to invent this amendment.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I have attached my name to the amendment. I should like to commend the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As regards the last point just made by the noble Lord, if he had been present at the last stage of the proceedings on the Bill he would know that that is one of the central issues. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has managed to table an amendment which has been sufficiently watered down so as to enable the Minister to give us an indication of the Government's support.

One of the problems that we on this side of the House have is that, during the last stage of the Bill, the Minister quite rightly pointed out many flaws in the amendments that we put forward. He pointed out that they would make the job of passing the Bill more difficult and that they also seemed to be quite negative. We pushed for the establishment of an advisory board to give advice on how the legislation could be implemented and, therefore, how the convention could be upheld. We are dealing with a very complex field in which a great many changes will take place as the years progress. We wanted to ensure that as many as possible of the changes that could take place would be given proper regard.

I have one point to make on the Bill. It relates to the confidentiality provision. On the last occasion the Minister stated that companies would have great difficulty in the fact that, if they put forward too much information, their commercial confidentiality would be at stake. I hope that the Minister can give us some indication that the provision will not be used as a smokescreen for companies which do not comply totally with the spirit of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on that.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)

My Lords, I wish to respond immediately to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. At an earlier stage in this Bill the anxiety I had was that the Government or the Secretary of State should not be confined to receiving advice from one source only because on a complicated matter such as this there may be many occasions and different circumstances where we would want to receive advice from a wide range of bodies. In some circumstances that would necessarily be confidential. I can confirm to my noble friend that we shall be seeking advice across a broad front. The only circumstance we wish to avoid is being restricted to taking advice from one particular source, as was suggested.

I do not think I shall surprise the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when I say that I do not intend to accept the amendment. That is not because I object to it in principle, but because I believe it is unnecessary. As I understood the noble Lord, his concern was that he should give me an opportunity to explain in more detail the Government's proposals in respect of the annual report. I am happy to attempt to respond to the opportunity that he has afforded me. I am pleased that both noble Lords who have tabled this amendment appear to have accepted the arguments I put forward against specifying the precise content of the annual report in statute.

The national authority will require companies and academic bodies to provide information. If this information is to be given freely, those giving it must be confident that the information will be properly protected and that secrets will not be disclosed. Any list of contents in an annual report must not cast doubt on the protection that will be given to confidential information. However, the aim of the annual report is—as the noble Lord identified—to assure Parliament that the Secretary of State is undertaking his responsibilities under the Act effectively. There is a clear tension, which has been properly identified by the Royal Society of Chemistry in its useful briefing, between including enough information in the annual report to provide this necessary assurance, and properly protecting confidentiality. It would be too difficult, I believe, to specify the content of the report in statute in a way which would satisfy those competing demands.

The approach that we have included in the Bill is neither a comfortable one nor a soft option but will ensure that the report provides the right information to Parliament. The Secretary of State will have to pick through all the information at his disposal and decide, within the constraints of commercial confidentiality and national security, how best he can satisfy Parliament that he is undertaking his responsibilities effectively. The report could not hide behind a poorly targeted contents list laid down in statute.

I have said that this amendment is in my view unnecessary. I need not remind noble Lords that the annual report will be about the implementation of a significant arms control treaty. Any report prepared on the basis proposed in the Bill will be prepared in the knowledge that it will be subject to careful scrutiny by this House and by many expert people outside. There is no doubt that the annual report will have to contain sufficient information to provide assurance that the Secretary of State is doing his job effectively. I can assure noble Lords that the report will be as informative as it can reasonably be. I hope that assurance will be accepted.

I have announced in earlier debates our intention to establish an advisory committee. The views of the advisory committee will be sought on the draft report. If the committee believes the annual report does not present a complete picture of the activities of the national authority, it will be able to draw its anxieties to the attention of the Secretary of State directly. This will provide a further safeguard that officials are not being over-cautious when drawing up the report. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was concerned about that.

I hope that with that expanded explanation on the way we wish to approach this matter, and recognising that clear tension which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, also recognised, he will appreciate that our desire is exactly the same as his; namely, to ensure that there is as comprehensive a report as possible. We do not wish to have this amendment on the face of the statute because we believe it is unnecessary rather than objecting in principle to trying to provide the type of report that he would wish.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank all three speakers who have contributed. I worry that no matter how gentle, restrained or uncontroversial I seek to be in anything I say, I still seem to raise someone's hackles at some point. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that he knows me well enough to realise that if I were looking for trouble I could have found a dozen or two dozen amendments to keep your Lordships going for several hours. We are somewhat at the fag end of our dealings on this matter. The intention of the amendment was as the Minister recognised; namely, to elicit from him precisely the remarks he has made. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, would agree with me that the Minister has done that; namely, he has guaranteed that we shall obtain the kind of serious report that we would wish to have.

I have no doubt at all that Her Majesty's Government will pursue this weapons question vigorously. One of the reasons we have been anxious to get the Bill on the statute book is precisely to enable us to get going with that matter. I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.