asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, talks under the Brussels process are continuing. Our aim remains a comprehensive agreement covering all outstanding issues, including co-operation and sovereignty, by the summer. We firmly believe that that represents the best way to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar.

I remind your Lordships that there will be no changes on the constitutional position of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is part reassuring and part disturbing. Is she aware of the recent petition to Her Majesty the Queen, delivered by the women of Gibraltar with more than 15,000 signatures, and the recent demonstrations in Gibraltar with more than 20,000 people expressing their overwhelming wish that the vast majority of the people of Gibraltar should remain British citizens, but also their concern about the agreement to which the Minister referred?

Will she indicate whether there is any danger that the making of such agreements might violate the Gibraltar Constitution Order which guaranteed that Her Majesty's Government would never enter into any arrangements against the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar? In the event of such agreements being voted against by the people of Gibraltar, will those arrangements be dissolved?

My Lords, I am aware of the petition to which the noble Baroness referred and of the demonstrations which took place in Gibraltar. Together with my colleague the Minister for Europe, I met trade union representatives and I am very aware of the strength of feeling about the issue.

However, I reiterate that there will be no change in the constitutional position without the express agreement of the people of Gibraltar. The noble Baroness seems to think that there is doubt about that, so perhaps I may remind her of what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 20th March:

"There can and will be no change to the constitutional position of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar".

Mr Caruana, the Chief Minister, said in his New Year message:

"Both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made it clear in parliamentary Statements that there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar against our wishes".

He went on to say very tellingly:

"I believe that assurance is totally reliable".

My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that if the proposed deal is rejected in a referendum by the people of Gibraltar, it will be taken off the table?

My Lords, as the Foreign Secretary stated, if the proposals emerging from the Brussels process are not accepted, they cannot evaporate—we cannot deny that they represent this Government's opinion on the best way forward. What we can say categorically is that if they are rejected by the people of Gibraltar, they cannot be implemented. They remain simply matters of agreement on a possible way forward between ourselves and the Spanish Government, but they cannot be implemented without the express agreement of the people of Gibraltar.

My Lords, there is some ambiguity in what the Minister is saying. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that if the people of Gibraltar turn the deal down—as, of course, they will—the whole matter lapses. However, the Minister appears to be saying no, it will continue and somehow go on the back-burner and leave Gibraltar in a constant situation of doubt and unsettlement. Which is it: is the Foreign Secretary right or is the Minister right?

My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, both the Foreign Secretary and I are right because to the best of my knowledge I have reiterated the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary. I believe that the noble Lord will find that that is consistent with what my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe said in dealing with these questions in another place earlier this week. It is clear that if the proposals are rejected by the people of Gibraltar, they cannot be implemented.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the sentiment expressed wisely in this House when the subject of Gibraltar last arose at Question Time: that for there to be a sensible conclusion on Gibraltar, there must be solid, strong evidence of good faith and good will on the part of the Spanish Government? That was one month ago. Has there been any such solid evidence in the time that has elapsed?

My Lords, I believe that there has to a certain extent. I am sure that many examples will be claimed of misunderstandings and difficulties, but one of the best examples of progress has been the issue surrounding border delays. There have been considerable improvements in the delays which ranged from 30 to 90 minutes for people trying to enter Gibraltar. Those delays have been cut considerably to an average of 10 minutes. That is a result of putting in two channels in order to enter Gibraltar. I fully realise that others will adduce other arguments, but that is a piece of good evidence.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, may we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton?

My Lords, recognising that the Government believe that Gibraltar is a problem to be solved rather than a redoubt to be defended, would not the Minister believe that the idea of a joint sovereignty between Britain and Spain a very positive suggestion for the future?

My Lords, the fact that there is an issue to be solved around Gibraltar has been recognised not only by Her Majesty's Government but also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, and by others in the previous administration who worked to try to achieve a reasonable resolution of the issue.

I do not want to anticipate what will emerge from the discussions which my right honourable friends are having with their Spanish counterparts, but obviously the issue of joint sovereignty is likely to be one that has taken up a good deal of time in discussion. Whether it emerges in the final proposals, we shall have to wait and see.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government are trying to reach a sensible agreement with Spain that is based on the long-term interests of the Gibraltarians? As my noble friend said, if an agreement is reached, it will be put to the Gibraltarians in a referendum. That being so, is not the sensible course for parliamentarians not to make a hasty judgment but to take a balanced long-term view on what the agreement produces?

My Lords, my noble friend has been most sensible, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, when we previously discussed the matter. The noble and learned Lord from the other side of the House, and with a great deal of experience, made a similar point. The fact is that if one is putting proposals in a referendum, common sense dictates that they must be sufficiently attractive to those whom one is asking to vote upon them in order for one to have any chance of the issue going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, says, "No, they are all going to disagree before we even start". I believe that that is a sad and negative view to take at this stage.

Next Question!

My Lords

My Lords, we are into the ninth minute and it is not fair to other noble Lords who have tabled Questions.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What actions they are proposing to reduce road deaths and accidents as outlined in the 10-year transport plan.

My Lords, the 10-year plan for transport referred to the Government's target to reduce road deaths and serious injuries in Britain by 40 per cent by 2010. Details of the wide range of measures that will deliver that and our other road safety targets are set out in the strategy document, Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone, which was published in March 2000.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In view of the Government's reluctance to take action against people who use mobile phones, which we discussed on Monday, and the considerable tightening of the criteria of the siting of speed cameras, which makes it most difficult to erect them on new sites—indeed, many of the existing cameras are to be put into roadside storage—have they any chance of meeting the steep reductions in casualties which they anticipate?

My Lords, yes, we have. We are quietly positive about the progress so far. First, after two years of a 10-year programme, we are already one-third of the way towards achieving the death and serious injury target. Already there has been a 13 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads as compared with when the programme began. Secondly, with regard to child deaths and serious injuries, we are half way to meeting that target after two years. That has already produced a reduction of 24 per cent as compared with the base figures.

In no way are we complacent about these statistics. As the House well knows, every one of those deaths and serious injuries represents a tragedy, but there are no grounds for believing that we are off course on this. If anything, it is the reverse. That is a compliment to the British public, which has made a major contribution to the achievement of this improvement.

My Lords, can my noble friend help me with regard to a question about human nature?

From his earlier response, it seems that drivers recognise that if they do not see a bright red—a bright yellow—camera with warning signs, then they can speed with impunity. Given the proven link between higher speed driving and serious accidents, how will that reduce the number of accidents over the next 10 years?

My Lords, I regret to say that drivers will never see a bright red camera because they are to be painted yellow. However, perhaps that is beside the point. The purpose of speed cameras, which so far are being assessed in 15 pilot programmes which are to he further extended, is not to boost the Revenue by catching a great many people, but rather to help shift the behaviour of drivers. The issue is very serious. It does not concern trying to criminalise people, but trying to put across to the public that speed kills. Around 70 per cent of people are killed if they are hit by a car travelling at 35 miles per hour whereas if they are hit by a car travelling at 25 miles an hour, the percentage death rate is vastly lower. Thus it matters massively to reduce speed.

The extensive speed camera programme is already showing evidence that it is significantly reducing deaths and serious injuries wherever the cameras are located—by almost 50 per cent in the pilot areas.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, to a certain extent, a factor which adds to the number of road deaths and accidents is the increasing tendency of push cyclists to ignore anything to do with the Highway Code? They ride on pavements and ride across red lights with impunity.

My Lords, I shall be careful of what I say about cyclists after my comments earlier in the week. Certainly most of us have noticed that there does seem to be some difference in the behaviour of cyclists; that is, not all cyclists. I do not think that anyone in this House is anti-cyclist. We want to see more people using bicycles rather than fewer. However, it would be good if cyclists used the road rather than the pavement and it would be good if they stopped at traffic lights. Clearly, if they do not, they have committed offences and they can he prosecuted.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that within the Metropolitan Police district during 2001, the number of people killed on the roads in the district increased by 32 per cent over the previous year? In only slightly in excess of that 12-month period, the number of traffic officers on the road in the Metropolitan Police district had fallen by around 50 per cent. Would my noble friend like to hazard a guess as to whether there might be any correlation between the two?

My Lords, I am not aware of either of those statistics. However, they are important and I shall certainly look at them after today's Question Time. It is possible that there is a connection, but I should have thought it unlikely. In a sense, the number of traffic officers does not have a particularly powerful effect on deterring dangerous situations. The issue concerns much more driver behaviour in a whole variety of circumstances. While one would expect the presence of more traffic police on the roads, like the presence of more traffic cameras, to have some effect, the fundamental issue is the one we talked about previously. Each of us, including myself, must take responsibility for our own behaviour on the roads. We must recognise that we can kill people if we do not observe the highest standards of behaviour. I do not think that any government have yet put that point over clearly to the public; namely, that we have to shift our own behaviour. It is not for someone else.

My Lords, I found the noble Lord's response to the reduced number of traffic police officers on the road rather strange. Has he never been driving on a motorway when a police car has appeared? He would have noticed that everyone reduces their speed. When the noble Lord referred to cyclists being caught by the police, the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is quite apparent: there are no traffic police officers about to catch those wretched cyclists who go over red lights and ride on the pavements. Could the noble Lord please look seriously at the situation with regard to the traffic police force?

My Lords, yes, the Government will look at it. We are committed to trying to make a very significant improvement in road safety standards. Clearly the police have a major part to play in that. However, I think that we are being assisted by the new technology. Speed cameras and traffic light cameras provide a more effective way of detecting offences than using highly skilled police resources, because they do not require the same amount of police time. Evidence so far from their use has been extremely positive. Nevertheless, I shall take up the suggestion put by the noble Countess.

My Lords, can the Minister justify his claim of a 25 per cent reduction in road accidents when the numbers supplied by the Library to my noble friend show that in 1997, those killed and seriously injured numbered 46,500? The number for 2001 was 41,500. That represents a fall of only 5,000 out of 46,000, which translates to a reduction of 11 per cent.

My Lords, the detailed figures are no secret. They are published every quarter on the website. I have a copy of the latest set which I shall be happy to share with the noble Baroness after Question Time. In essence, the number of deaths and serious injuries recorded in 2000 was 41,564, which is 13 per cent lower than the base year; namely, the average of the years 1994–98, the latter of which was the latest year on which there were any statistics before the figures came into effect.

Noble Lords may laugh; it is good to laugh. However, I do not think that we could achieve a fairer or more sensible base. The progress from that base—for which the Government do not take credit; that goes to the public—is significant. We have a long way further to go on this and by no means is this the position at which we want to remain.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether National Health Service cancer units are receiving the necessary resources to improve services.

My Lords, the cancer plan is being backed by a large increase in funding for cancer services. Last year, funding rose by £280 million. This year it will be over £400 million.

My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply, but the recent report of the Science and Technology Committee demonstrates that only one-eighth of the £280 million allocated to cancer services has actually been received by those cancer services. The committee stated:

"We consider it dissembling to allocate funding to cancer care with great publicity without taking even the simplest precaution to ensure that it reaches the intended areas".

Do the Chancellor's Statement yesterday and the Secretary of State's Statement today demonstrate that the Government will now move from hypothecation and earmarking to trying to ensure that the money is spent in the proper places?

My Lords, what my right honourable friend the Chancellor made clear in his Statement yesterday is our fundamental support for the principle of the NHS and the provision of resources to support it over many years to come. With regard to the question of hypothecation and allocations, the noble Lord will know that the Government regard cancer services as a priority. That is why we have identified the sums of money that we believe should be spent by the National Health Service. Of course we will be responding to the report of the Select Committee in the other place in due course. However, the targets and the outcomes that have been set for the delivery of the cancer plan are making encouraging progress. Of course we will monitor the spending of resources and in the future we shall discuss those matters with strategic health authorities. However, I am satisfied that good progress is being made.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a serious shortage of radiographers and radiologists, who are vital for the quick and efficient diagnosis of the disease? Will he do something about it?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness and I pay tribute to the work undertaken by radiotherapy departments. Staffing levels of therapy radiographers have increased by more than 9 per cent since 1997. We wish to continue to make progress in that area.

My Lords, while yesterday's announcements were enormously welcome in terms of both funding and accountability for the health service, my noble friend will be aware that there have been grave concerns about the ineffective ring-fencing of moneys under the cancer plan for last year. I declare an interest, of which the House is aware, as chairman of Cancer Research UK. Can my noble friend give some reassurance on both the monitoring of spending this year in order that this year's allocation will not be subject to such widespread doubt, and, equally, on the publication of the figures for last year's spending? If, as is feared, there has been a grave shortfall, will he give an undertaking that that will be made good?

My Lords, I doubt very much whether any hard evidence is available at the moment to suggest a grave shortfall. We shall monitor the end-of-year figures. I have already given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to discuss those with strategic health authorities because clearly the matter will need to be taken forward in discussions about future allocations. I reiterate that considerable progress is being made in the area of cancer services through an increase in staff numbers and equipment, and in delivery on the two-week wait target. I am satisfied that the NHS is doing a great deal to ensure that we deliver on the cancer plan targets.

My Lords, I recently visited a patient in the intensive care unit of one of the best London teaching hospitals, for which I have nothing but praise. That hospital had no working morphine pump. Does the Minister agree that when money becomes available it must be used for purposes such as that—paying debts and mending holes in the roof—before it improves the services? The job is similar to feeding a famine victim—it cannot be done rapidly. Will he try to ensure that the press remembers that?

My Lords, I agree that we cannot turn around overnight a service such as the NHS. That is why we need the step change approach taken by the Government and the levels of investment that we have announced. As to equipment, I shall certainly look into the specific matter raised by the noble Earl. I agree that it is vital to get more equipment into cancer services. We are doing so. We also need to ensure that the fabric of the buildings in which the equipment is provided is put right.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the Christie Hospital in Manchester we now have the leading radiotherapy research centre in the world? We have recently installed the latest equipment available anywhere in the world. We paid for it entirely through funds raised locally, without any government resources—and no one was taxed a penny.

My Lords, I am very glad to hear that.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the contract awarded to PowderJect Pharmaceuticals to supply smallpox vaccine was subject to full competitive tendering.

My Lords, the contract awarded to PowderJect Pharmaceuticals was not subject to full competitive tendering. As this procurement concerns national security, it falls outside the usual rules governing competitive tendering.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree with his noble friend Lord Haskins, who is in his place, that there was no reason for not having a fully open and transparent bidding process? Will he comment on the Prime Minister's statement in another place yesterday that,

"many companies were asked to tender".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/02; col. 567.]?

My Lords, I very often agree with my noble friend and pay tribute to the work that he has undertaken in the area of better regulation, but I do not agree with the remarks reported to have been made in the media. The situation is this. As smallpox has been eradicated since the 1970s, its reintroduction is likely to occur only as a result of terrorist activity. This raises issues of national security and our preparedness to deal with such an attack is not a matter to be put in the public domain. In seeking to establish which vaccine manufacturing companies might be able to provide new vaccine to meet our requirements, we therefore took the decision that purchase of the new vaccine would fall outside the usual open competitive tendering process. A number of companies were approached and the decision was eventually made to give the contract to the company that best met the specifications.

My Lords, has the Minister read today's Guardian?

No, my Lords. I prefer to avoid reading the Guardian if I can.

My Lords, what were the national security considerations that made possible a full competitive tendering process in the United States hut not in this country?

My Lords, what the US Government decide to do is a matter for themselves. This Government decided that these were important issues of national security. That is why we took the decision that we did. The procedure undertaken was checked and cleared by the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health. I am wholly satisfied that everything was in order.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, noble Lords cannot ask more than one question.

My Lords, does the Minister remember signing a Written Answer to me on 11th March? I asked what plans the Government had to increase the quantity of anti-smallpox vaccine held in the United Kingdom. His answer was that,

"the United Kingdom policy on future smallpox vaccine manufacturing is currently under review".—[Official Report, 11/ 3/02; col. WA 56.]

When he signed that Answer, was he personally aware that a contract had been, or was about to be, placed? If so, does he regard that Answer as being frank with Parliament?

Yes, my Lords. My understanding is that work was undertaken by the department over a considerable period of time to enable a decision to be made. A decision was made and signed off on 11th March. It is our intention and policy to ensure that we are as open as possible within the constraints of national security.

My Lords, one of the Government's arguments was that they needed to operate with speed and conclude the matter now. Does the Minister accept that the US was able to put the contract out to competitive tender and to conclude it within six weeks? Does he further accept the point made by Professor Oxford of Bart's and the Royal London that there is no medical reason to opt for the vaccine strain chosen by the UK Government rather than the one more readily available and chosen by the US Government? Following Ecclestone et al, does not the Minister wish that his department had put the matter out to competitive tender so that the Government could have avoided the claims of cronyism which have surrounded this controversy?

No, my Lords. The Government have acted quite properly throughout this process. As to the question of which strain should be used, the decision was taken to go for a particular strain in this country for two reasons. A two-pronged approach was thought advisable. With the US using a different strain, if difficulties arose with the production of either strain the other could act as a joint fall-back mechanism. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation endorsed the view that there was no reason to opt for the strain chosen by the US as opposed to the strain chosen by the UK Government. There is also strong epidemiological evidence of efficacy in that smallpox has been challenged in the field more often with the strain chosen by the UK Government, and there is more documentation to support its use.

My Lords, will the Minister answer the Question posed by my noble friend Lady Noakes? Was the Prime Minister correct to say yesterday in another place that,

"many companies were asked to tender"—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/02: col. 567.]?

Was the Prime Minister's official spokesman correct to state to journalists on 17th April that there was a tendering process?

My Lords, the department consulted widely with industry about its capacity and ability to deliver supplies quickly in a way that met our requirements to increase national supplies of vaccine. My understanding is that five companies were approached to see whether they could meet the specifications. It is very clear indeed that a number of companies were given the opportunity to put forward their case for being chosen. I have stated that the Permanent Secretary in the Department of Health was asked to give advice as to whether the proper procedure had been adopted. His advice was that it had.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:

What Her Majesty's Government's position will be at the special meeting of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to be held at The Hague on 21st April, when it is anticipated that the United States will seek to unseat its long-standing—and highly effective—director-general, Sr Jose Bustani.

My Lords, I can confirm that a special conference of states parties to the chemical weapons convention will convene in The Hague on 21st April 2002 at the request of the United States to consider the appointment of the director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Her Majesty's Government are still finalising their position. However, your Lordships should know that, at the meeting of the executive council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on 22nd March, the United Kingdom supported a vote of no confidence in the director-general.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does she agree that the real American objection to Sr Bustani is not to his failings, but to his very success? For example, he has increased the number of signatories to the chemical weapons convention from 87 to 140 in the past five years. Such is his success and his reputation for impartiality—quite apart from asking searching questions about the United States' own chemical weapons—that it is thought that he might be able to persuade Iraq to join and to adhere to the chemical weapons convention, rather than to allow the return of UNMOVIC, which Iraq considers to be US dominated. If that were the case, would it not remove a major pretext for US military intervention in Iraq, which appears to be the policy of the hawks in the United States Administration?

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with a great deal of my noble friend's conjecture. The director-general did indeed have some successes in the work that he undertook during his first period of office in establishing the OPCW and in establishing a world-wide verification regime. But, sadly, the organisation encountered financial difficulties early in 2001, for which the director-general must take a measure of responsibility. I cannot agree with the supposition that his period of office has been one of great success when those financial problems led, last year, to his not being able to maintain the appropriate level of inspections worldwide of military and commercial sites. As I understand it, towards the end of last year, the number of inspections fell by almost 50 per cent of the normal annual schedule. We made representations to the director-general on several occasions last year about our concerns at the decline in verification activity. I believe that that is what lies at the heart of the current difficulty.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is grossly unfair to serve these accusations in public on the director-general, when he has been given no formal opportunity to rebut them, either in the conference of states parties or in the executive council? Is it not contrary to natural justice that he should be charged in this public manner without being given an adequate opportunity to rebut the charges? Does the Minister agree that, if the US is allowed to intimidate and coerce other states, as it has done, into dismissing an international civil servant, it will undermine the independence of all international institutions? Do not the Government see a pattern developing with the attempts by the US Administration, not only against the director-general of the OPCW but also to undermine Mr Hans Blix, the head of UNMOVIC? Does the Minister further agree that, if this procedure continues, no international institution will be able to claim full independence?

My Lords. I hope that the noble Lord is not bracketing me in what he describes as unfairness. When I am asked a Question in this House, I must give the Answer that I believe is accurate and which accurately reflects the position of Her Majesty's Government.

I indicated to the House that the Government are still finalising their position. The reason is that the Secretary of State has not come to a final decision. However. I felt it right in the circumstances to indicate to your Lordships how we had voted at the executive council. To have done anything else would have been misleading. I felt it right to give your Lordships some of the reasons for doing so, as I was asked to do. Her Majesty's Government were not alone with the United States in reaching that decision on a vote of no confidence during the executive meeting in March. Seventeen countries out of the 40 represented voted for a motion of no confidence; 18 abstained; and five opposed the motion of no confidence. That is a fairly telling list of votes.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it would perhaps be more profitable for the House to consider the British reasons for not accepting this gentleman and for voting for a motion of no confidence in him, rather than over-speculating as to the motivation of the United States in this matter? Will my noble friend reiterate and clarify the reasons why the British Government could not support him?

My Lords, as I indicated, the organisation encountered some financial difficulties early last year. As I understand it from the briefings that I have received, those difficulties were rooted in structural problems within the organisation and in the fact that some states parties had not paid their contributions on time; and there was a degree of mismanagement in the organisation. We and other states parties wanted to get to the bottom of the problem. As I have indicated, we were concerned about the verification procedures and about maintaining the level of verification, both military and commercial. We asked the director-general to cooperate with an effort to get to the bottom of the problems, and I understand that he did not co-operate in the way that we would have expected.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that both the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government made their contributions to the organisation on time?

My Lords, I shall have to check on that point. The United Kingdom Government have a very good record in these matters, and I shall check on the further matter.

My Lords, it is often the custom in this House for reference to be made to briefings. Will the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that members of the Government do not invariably rely on briefings, but on what they themselves think?

My Lords, I hate to disabuse the noble Lord, but I will be frank with him and tell him that I was not aware of the difficulty until I saw the Private Notice Question of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I would not expect to be aware of the difficulty because it does not lie within my specific area of responsibility. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of Slate is aware, as is my honourable friend Mr Bradshaw. They have frontline responsibilities for the matters, but I argue for them in your Lordships' House. I would not wish any noble Lord to be under any illusion at all: I have relied on official briefings in giving my answer to your Lordships.

My Lords, my noble friend spoke of the organisation's financial difficulty in fulfilling its inspection tasks. Is she aware that the United States put a cap on its funding, but was then one of the nations that failed to pay its dues?

No, my Lords, I was not aware of the United States' position in that respect; nor am I aware of the funding coming forward from any other individual country. However, I can say that the United States, Japan, Germany, Italy. France and the United Kingdom together provide 70 per cent of the organisation's funding. I have not been able to answer in detail the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, or that put by my noble friend. I shall, if I may, take away those points, write to the noble Baroness and my noble friend, and place a copy of the answer in the Library of the House.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a Statement on the next steps on reform and investment in health and social services. I am today laying before Parliament a Command Paper setting out these next steps, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.

"The NHS Plan we published in July 2000 set out a 10-year programme to rebuild and renew the health service in our country. It diagnosed the NHS problem in this way: the principles of the NHS are right—on this side of the House we believe in in NHS free at the point of use, funded from general taxation, based on need not ability to pay. But the NHS today is the product of decades of under-investment. It is also the product of a failure to reform. Staff—the greatest asset that the health service has—work flat out in a system which still too much resembles the 1940s.

"The NHS Plan set out a 10-year programme of investment and reform: clear national standards, more devolution of resources, greater flexibility for staff and more choice for patients. With the economy stabilised and the public finances sorted out, the 2000 spending review was able to give the NHS the largest-ever real-terms increases in resources.

"Two years later, anyone who says there are no problems in the NHS have clearly got it wrong, but those who say there is no progress have also got it wrong. Yes, there is a long way to go; it is a 10-year plan. But those who point to an NHS black hole should in fact be pointing to dozens more hospitals, hundreds more beds, thousands more doctors, tens of thousands more nurses, and a better health service as a result.

"In July 2000, we acknowledged that three years' sustained funding was not enough. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had already said in January 2000 that we needed to match EU levels of spending. Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put NHS finances on a sustainable footing, not for three years but for five. Years of failure in the past to invest are now being replaced with years of investment for the future.

"Today, I can tell the House what this investment will give us: 35,000 more nurses, 15,000 more doctors, 40 new hospitals, 500 primary care centres. As investment grows, so the capacity of the NHS will grow.

"Investment in the NHS must be accompanied by changes in the way the NHS works. Ours is not an unconditional offer. Without the reforms we will not get the best use of the money for the taxpayer and we will not get the improvements in service for the patient. Where we have had the courage to invest, we must now have the courage to reform. Our formula is simple: investment plus reform equals results.

"So, first, building on the national standards already in the NHS Plan, I can tell the House today that we will strengthen the system of inspection and audit to improve accountability to patients and the public. Where more resources are going in, people have the right to know what they are getting out. We will establish a new commission for healthcare audit and inspection to inspect and raise standards in healthcare across our country. But we are clear: we need higher standards in NHS hospitals, and there must be higher standards in private hospitals, too. The commission will assess the performance of every part of the NHS so that the public will see that every extra pound in the NHS buys something better for patients, gets something more for taxpayers.

"Similar arrangements will be made for social care. We will discuss the details of both with the National Assembly for Wales.

"The new commission will be independent both of the NHS and of Government and will be more independent than the current fragmented system. It will report annually to Parliament, not to Ministers, on the state of the NHS, the performance of the NHS, and the use to which NHS resources have been put. The Government should not be judge and jury on the NHS. The commission will be the judge, the British people the jury.

"Secondly, we can now go further in extending devolution in the NHS, building on what has been achieved to date. The health service should not and cannot be run from Whitehall. The NHS is delivered in hundreds of different communities by over I million staff. The relationships are between the local patient and the local doctor, and the local community and the local hospital. But these relationships will not work properly until central control is replaced by local accountability. After 50 years, the time has come when the sound of bedpans being dropped in Tredegar should only reverberate in Tredegar.

"With national standards and inspection in place, power, resources and responsibilities now must move to the NHS frontline. When we came to office, GPs controlled just 15 per cent of the total NHS budget. Today, primary care trusts—with GPs and nurses in the lead—already control half of the budget. Within just two years, they will control three-quarters. Just as the new commission will report nationally, so PCTs will need to report locally on how NHS resources have been spent.

"The best primary care trusts, just like the best NHS hospitals, should enjoy greater freedoms and more rewards. We will establish new foundation hospitals and foundation primary care trusts—fully part of the NHS, but with more freedoms than they have now. They will have more powers, including a right to borrow, to expand their services for patients.

"Thirdly, further to the new powers we have given to nurses and others, we will radically alter the way staff work and introduce a new system of financial incentives across the whole health service. We will put in place new contracts of employment—not just for nurses and other staff, but for GPs and, yes, for hospital consultants too. Our objective is to liberate the potential of all members of staff, reward those most who do most in the NHS, and, crucially, to improve productivity across the whole health service.

"New incentives for individual members of staff will be matched with a new system of financial incentives on NHS organisations. The hospitals that can treat more patients will earn more money. Traditional incentives work in the opposite direction. Indeed, it is often the poorest performers who get the most financial help.

"We will therefore introduce a new system for money to flow around the health service, ending perverse incentives, paying hospitals by results. The incentive will be to treat more NHS patients more quickly and to higher standards.

"Fourthly, patient choice will drive this system. Starting with those with the most serious clinical conditions, patients will have a greater choice over when they are treated and where they are treated. From this summer, patients who have been waiting six months for a heart operation will be able to choose a hospital—whether it is public or private—which has capacity to offer quicker treatment.

"This level of investment means that we can grow NHS capacity as fast as it is possible. I can also say today that it is our intention to draw into this country additional overseas capacity so that we can further expand NHS services to NHS patients.

"As capacity expands, so choice can grow. Within three years, all patients, with their GPs, will be able to hook hospital appointments at a time and a place that is convenient to themselves. The reforms we are making will mark an irreversible shift from the 1940s take-it-or-leave-it, top down service. Hospitals will no longer choose patients; patients will choose hospitals.

"Reductions in waiting times to get into hospital must be matched by cuts in waiting times to get out. Older people are the generation who built the NHS and who have supported it all their lives. This generation owes to that generation a guarantee of dignity and security in old age. Bed blocking denies both.

"In recent months the extra resources we have made have reduced the number of elderly patients whose discharge from hospital has been delayed. I am grateful for the help local councils have given us in addressing this problem. But here the long-term solution is not just investment; it is reform.

"So I can tell the House today that in order to bridge the gap between health and social care we intend, as they have done in Sweden and elsewhere, to legislate to give local councils responsibility from their 6 per cent extra real terms resources for the costs of beds needlessly blocked in hospitals. Councils will need to use these resources to ensure that older people are able to leave hospital when their treatment is completed.

"If councils reduce the current level of bed blocking so that older people are able to leave hospital safely when they are well, they will have freedom to use these resources to invest in extra services. If bed blocking goes up, councils will incur the costs of keeping older people in hospital unnecessarily. There will be similar incentives to prevent hospitals seeking to discharge patients prematurely. In this way we will provide local councils with the investment and the incentives to improve care for older people.

"Taken together the NHS Plan and the next steps announced today amount to the most radical and fundamental reform programme inside the NHS since 1948. I want to pay tribute to the staff in the NHS, not just the nurses, doctors and consultants, but all the staff—the different medical disciplines, the ancillary staff, the secretaries, receptionists, porters and cleaners. They represent the very best of British public service and I believe that as a nation and as a Parliament we should be proud of the work they do. I know and understand the enormous pressure they are under as the NHS makes these changes. But I know, too, that they share this basic goal: to rebuild the NHS around the needs of its patients.

"This programme of investment and reform will mean each year, every year, waiting times will fall. Last year the maximum wait for a hospital operation was 18 months. Today it is 15 months. By this time next year it will fall to 12 months. By 2005 it will be six months. And by 2008 it will have been reduced to three months. By then the average waiting time for a hospital operation will he just six weeks. No longer will people have to face the dilemma of having to wait for treatment or having to pay for treatment.

"As a party and a government we are committed to providing opportunities to all in our society and not just some. So there will be more effort to prevent ill health as well as treating it—25,000 lives a year saved by the investment we cart now make in preventing and treating heart disease alone.

"The balance of services will shift with more patients seen in primary and community settings, not just in hospitals. Social services will have resources to extend by one-third rehabilitation care for older people. Councils will be able to increase fees to stabilise the care home market and secure more care home beds. And more investment will mean more old people with the choice of care in their own homes rather than simply in care homes. Yesterday's Budget and today's NHIS reforms mean that the NHS Plan will be delivered.

"I want to make two further points, however. Ii is a 10-year plan, as we said in July 2000. By the time of the next election, there will be real and significant improvements. But this cannot happen overnight. It takes seven years at least to train a doctor and up to 15 years to train a consultant. Expectations will be high but they also need to be reasonable and people need to understand that a 10-year plan is exactly what it says: a plan that will take time to be delivered in full. But at least now public and patients will be able to see improvements made stage by stage and independently of government, audited, monitored and inspected.

"Secondly, on one thing there is a consensus. Britain needs to spend more on healthcare. There is no mystery why in Germany there are not waiting lists. They have spent more and have done so for years.

"We can debate endlessly the systems of finance. But one thing is beyond debate: the level of finance had to be raised. And once that is accepted, the choice is not between a system funded out of general taxation, that results in higher national insurance, and some other system that comes for free. Importing the German system of social insurance would cost the equivalent of an extra £1,000 per worker per year, the French system £1,500 per worker per year.

"We on this side of the House believe in the NHS in our heads as well as our hearts. We believe it to be the best and fairest system of providling true health insurance because it is based on the scale of the person's need not the size of their wallet. It is the best insurance policy in the world.

"It is now for those who want to see the NHS not reformed but abandoned, who routinely call it Stalinist, to say honestly what their alternative is, what it would cost and how families and pensioners would pay for it.

"Yesterday we made a choice and we ask the British people to make the same choice. We are proud of our NHS and the people working in it. We are giving it the money it deserves. We are making the changes it needs. Investment plus reform equals results. We will be happy to be judged upon them".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is self-evidently of great significance for the NHS as well as for taxpayers.

The full implications of this announcement will emerge only over the next few days and weeks. The Statement is long on generalised aspirations and rather short on detail. However, several things are clear. The Government have embarked on a route which is make or break. Not only have they shut off any debate about moving away from a monopoly funding stream for healthcare, and thus distanced the UK from almost every other developed country, they have also staked everything on substantial tax increases, which they told us at the election they would not impose. The macro-economic effects of these plans are perhaps a matter for another occasion, although they are already exciting concern from respected economic commentators.

The health effects, on the other hand—the health gains, the improvements in services, the improvements in productivity—are the things on which the Government will eventually be judged. If they are not to be perceived as pouring ever increasing amounts of money into a black hole, then it is necessary for them to show that the reforms to the system, which the Statement makes so much of, really have created the kind of health service that is capable of deploying the new money efficiently and effectively for patients.

On the real extent of these much trumpeted reforms, I entertain considerable doubts. One of the most striking passages in the Statement was that relating to greater freedoms being conferred at the NHS front line. The Minister spoke of foundation hospitals and foundation PCTs. Can he say what exactly these organisations will be? What legal form will they have? Who will appoint their board members? What constraints and what freedoms will they operate under? I am all for greater autonomy, but what will it actually amount to and how many NHS bodies will benefit?

The power of foundation trusts to borrow was mentioned. Can the Minister say whether this means that they will be able to borrow from the market? Will there be a Treasury guarantee for such borrowings and what will be their effect on the PSBR? Borrowing necessarily implies repayment. How will such repayment be provided for? Will borrowing just be a way of anticipating future cash allocations, thus storing up difficulties for later years? When will we have full details of what is proposed?

The White Paper speaks about financial incentives and penalties. I found that section pretty baffling, but one of its features is apparently to be that if a trust fails to deliver its targets, money will be taken away from it. How will this work? How will it be possible to avoid a situation where money that is taken away gives rise to cuts in capacity, which in turn lead to a downward spiral of delivery against objectives?

The Statement referred to a new system for money to flow around the health service. Will the Minister say what is meant by that, if it is not what we have long advocated and what the Government abolished when they came to office; namely, money following the patient? How exactly will that be achieved?

To deliver reform on the appropriate scale will require investment in IT. The Government admit that they have not spent enough on IT to date and in particular that there has been inadequate progress in delivering electronic patient records, which is one of the key building blocks for an efficient, patient-centred service. If there is to be greater devolution within the health service, how will the Government ensure that the right IT systems are commissioned?

I turn briefly to accountability and audit. The Statement referred to the independence to be conferred on the new commission for healthcare audit and inspection. Will the Minister say who will set the budget for the commission and from where its funding will be drawn?

Finally, I turn to the shortage of beds. It seems extraordinary that a Government who have been willing to countenance—not to say engineer—a drastic downsizing of the care home sector should now be seeking to shift the blame, and the burden, for bed blocking on to local authorities. Can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to make council tax payers foot the bill for bed-blocking problems? How can that be a fair deal when, as we know from some parts of the country, there is a drastic shortage of care home beds—a shortage that was brought about quite deliberately by the Government's policies?

It is perhaps a cause for some small comfort that the Government recognise that money alone cannot deliver the improvements in healthcare that we all wish. That also requires reform. The test for them is to turn their rhetoric on reform into reality. I for one profoundly doubt whether the scale of the reform will be anything like sufficient to ensure that the substantial new sums that are earmarked for healthcare will add commensurate value to the NHS and the patients whom it serves.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in another place.

We on these Benches welcome the references in the Chancellor's Budget yesterday on health funding and some—I stress that word—of the Secretary of State's Statement. I believe that that extra funding represents a victory for patients and "game, set and match" in terms of the arguments that the Liberal Democrats have been making, in some cases since the 1997 general election.

First, we on these Benches welcome the announcement of more resources for healthcare and believe that it should be funded from general taxation in a transparent and accountable manner. We have been making that argument for a considerable period. We believe that that represents the fairest form of social health insurance. That is in stark contrast to the position of those on the Tory Benches. We believe that Mr Wanless has actually got it right.

Secondly, I stress the need for social care funding to keep pace with NHS funding, which will ensure that hospital beds are freed up and that older people in particular can be cared for properly in the community. Whether the figure is 19,000 or 30,000 beds, the fact is that there has been a drastic reduction over the past three years. It is good that the Government have finally recognised that fact and that local authorities will now have the ability to fund domiciliary and residential care. In addition to that great change of heart by the Government, I hope that they will examine very carefully the arguments for providing free long-term personal care. They have already come quite a way in our direction; it takes just a little extra to come even closer.

Thirdly, I stress the need for the independent audit of standards and the need to establish whether money has been reaching the areas for which it was allocated. I referred to that in my last Starred Question. Throughout the passage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill we have argued strongly for an independent audit body. It is good to see the Secretary of State and the Chancellor taking note of debates in this House. I trust that the Select Committee to which the audit body will be accountable will follow very closely the proposals that we made from these Benches and which were supported by those on the Conservative Benches. Whoever said that arguments in politics do not have happy outcomes?

Many matters, however, need to be clarified. What is the timing for putting the initiatives into practice? The NHS, as I have pointed out on many occasions, is groaning under the weight of new initiatives. We have beacon hospitals and earned autonomy, and now we have foundation hospitals. So it has gone on in many different areas.

We argued at the outset—at Second Reading of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill—that that Bill should be delayed. We did so in our very confident belief that those reforms were half baked and would rapidly be superseded. So it has proved to be. The Bill has already been superseded by the Secretary of State's Statement. Will the Minister arrange for the Bill to be delayed so that the new audit body, which we welcome—it appears that it will be a combination of a number of different audit bodies—can be included? Or is he planning to table amendments on Report next week? That would involve a fairly superhuman effort. That demonstrates the way in which the Department of Health and the Secretary of State in particular currently operate. We get initiative piled on initiative and legislation piled on legislation. When will it ever end?

When will the merger with CHI take place? The National Care Standards Commission is barely up and running—I refer to the acute hospital inspection side—but it will be merged with CHI. When will CHI be merged with the new body? Even if the body is not going to be merged, there are already 21 mechanisms in the health service for clinical governance. We should be thankful for small mercies and pleased that we do not have a 22nd mechanism. There is a plan for some simplification of the system for clinical governance.

Much time has been lost—five years to be precise—on the argument for funding the health service transparently from general taxation. The Government are no longer dissembling in that respect. We need to ensure that professionals and managers are allowed to get on with the job in the health service. Will the Government now desist from setting any more targets? Those that we have are ambitious enough, despite the Government's spin, the reports of chief executives and so on. Will the Government now ensure that money that is allocated to the health service gets to the intended services? Apart from through the Audit Commission, how will that be done?

Finally, I pay tribute to the NHS as a body and to NHS staff. I know that they will welcome the Chancellor's additional funding. However, they will have extreme reservations about the Secretary of State's Maoist approach to management. That approach involves hyperactively changing every initiative before it has had a chance to take effect. I hope that, in implementing these initiatives, the Secretary of State will take all of that into account.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for what I believe was a welcome to at least the announced allocation Df resources to the NHS in future. Sadly, he did not say whether the Conservative Party would make a similar commitment of resources to the NHS. I agree with him that there is much detail in the proposal to be debated. We look forward to hearing more about his party's intentions.

The noble Earl's first substantive point was whether the current system of funding the NHS was the right one. I am delighted that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it abundant y clear that we believe that the current system of funding is indeed the right one, provided that that is accompanied by the reforms that are contained in the Statement. The Budget and the review documents that were published yesterday contain detailed information on alternative systems of funding. For instance, on funding by private insurance in the United States, those documents show that premiums average around £100 a week and are set to rise by £13 a week on average next year. As a result of those costs, that system insures only some of the people for some of their care.

Those documents also show that, on social insurance, the narrower base for contributions in France means that a typical employer pays £60 a week. That can place many costs on employers, it can have an impact on the economy and it affects employers' ability to create new jobs.

The report also shows that charging for clinical services, which would involve a healthcare system based on medical charges whereby patients would pay rising bills for individual operations and treatments, would mean, in effect, that the sick would pay more for being sick. It is the Government's view not only that the NHS system of funding is the most equitable, but that by offering the most comprehensive insurance policy to meet rising costs from medical advances, a reformed NHS can give people the greater security that they need.

I agree with the noble Earl about the crucial nature of this announcement and the future facing the NHS. There is no question but that this is a make-or-break situation for the National Health Service. It must show that it can change and reform and meet the expectations of the public with the resources that will now be made available.

The noble Earl asked about productivity. That is why we are introducing more freedoms into the system. We are introducing the right kind of financial incentives to make people behave in a way that will deliver the type of reform programme that I have described.

The noble Earl also asked for specific details about foundation trusts. I believe he will understand that I am not in a position to give precise answers because we still have to work through many of the details. However, I am convinced that if we are to have ownership of decision-making at local level, if we are to energise people and ensure good leadership in those who run the trusts, and if we are to get more people involved locally in what they do and support what they do, it is right to create foundation trusts.

It is extremely significant that the discussions that we have had with the chief executives of our most successful trusts indicate that they are very enthusiastic about the kind of freedoms that can be given when we create foundation trusts. In my view, an important potential of foundation trusts is that they are seen far less as agents of central government and far more as locally owned organisations which owe their accountability to the people whom they are there to serve.

The noble Earl asked me about financial incentives. At present, successful NHS trusts can exceed the activity that had been agreed with commissioners. However, in essence, there is no resource to pay them to do the extra work. It must make sense to incentivise the health service in order to ensure that those who can do more receive the rewards for doing so. Of course, it must be done in such a way that perverse incentives do not arise, and it must be done in relation to effective referral protocols. But surely the emphasis should be placed on rewarding those who do well rather than providing excuses for NHS organisations which do not.

As someone who has spent his career in the health service, the one point that I would make is that there is a great deal of difference between different organisations. We must not approach the NHS from the point of view that all organisations must be treated in the same way and that all are as good as each other. The work of the Commission for Health Improvement readily identifies enormous differences in the quality of work that is being done.

There is no doubt that the health service has invested inadequately in IT. I very much hope that the package announced yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor will enable the proper investment to put into IT. I believe that, while the thrust of what we are saying today concerns devolution, IT is one area where there needs to be central leadership. We shall give that leadership. We shall also ensure that organisations are aided through advice and support to enable them to make the best of their IT. I consider IT to be fundamental to the reform process.

With regard to inspectorates, I am not in a position to respond to the noble Earl in relation to resources. Of course, we need to work fully through the details, but I assure the noble Earl that we shall resource the new inspectorates adequately because we want them to do a very good job. He will also have noted that we intend them to be more independent. I believe that noble Lords who have debated this issue in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill will welcome that very much.

If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, started in a very constructive mode. I believe that he claimed that the announcement was all due to Liberal Democrat policy. I certainly welcome his support for the general funding of the NHS. I believe that we have done rather better than the penny on income tax proposed by his party. I also welcome the comments that he made about social care funding. If there is one thing that we have learnt, it is the importance of integration between decisions in health and social care. Clearly, if we are to deal with the issue of delayed discharges, we must have an integrated approach. I do not agree with him about personal care. I passionately believe that the money is better spent on intermediate care. That is where we shall spend that money.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, echoed the theme that the noble Earl. Lord Howe, often raises; that is, that the Government are guilty of weighing down the NHS with too many initiatives. In the planning priorities guidance for next year, we have recognised the need to focus the NHS on the issues that really matter. The Statement which I have repeated today focuses on the issues of waiting and choice— matters which are very important to the public. The new initiatives that we have announced—the financial incentives and the freedoms for trusts—are all designed to focus the NHS and to move away from a system where too many priorities are involved.

However, in many debates—and, indeed, today—when the noble Lord talks about ensuring that money is directed to the services which are important, he is as guilty as anyone of seeking to micro-manage the health service from the centre. We resist that temptation. We wish to give much greater flexibility at local level. Of course, it is important to ensure that services such as those for cancer are funded adequately at local level. It will be the role of strategic health authorities to performance-manage that. However, I consider it to be most important that we give as much freedom as possible at local level.

Finally, the noble Lord asked about the progress of the current National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. We are extremely satisfied with the Bill as currently drafted. We consider it to be important and we shall certainly proceed with it. We look forward to its Report stage in a few days' time. Of course, some of the measures that we have announced today will require primary legislation, but the noble Lord knows that I cannot possibly comment on when that might come before your Lordships' House.

My Lords, during my five years in your Lordships' House there have been few Statements that I have welcomed as wholeheartedly as I do this one. Indeed, it has already raised morale. I know that because this morning I spoke to some of the dedicated staff to whom I and many others owe our lives. I particularly welcome the increased incentive to bring about co-operation between health and social services. I believe that the phrase "bed blocking" is unfortunate, and I am glad that my noble friend used the term "delayed discharge" instead.

However, I want to ask my noble friend whether he agrees that, when it comes to promoting co-operation between health and social services, carrots are better than sticks. Can he give me an assurance that any penalising of either health or social services will be kept to a minimum? Further, can I ask him for an assurance that encouragement will be given to build on the excellent work and relationships established by the National Care Standards Commission and an assurance that it will not replaced by the new commission?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the announcement in yesterday's Budget and our intent today will bring great joy in the National Health Service. Not only are extra resources being provided, but stability over a five-year period, which is important.

I also agree that the term "delayed discharge" is probably a better one to use, although I detect from the Liberal Democrat Benches that even that term does not appeal to all Members of your Lordships' House. We all know why we need to tackle the issues with gusto. We know of the problems that there have been despite the generally good work undertaken by health and local authorities. There have been capacity problems in terms of getting people out of hospital, but intermediate care is one way in which that is being tackled.

At the end of the day, an incentive system, which is based on schemes in Denmark and Sweden, is the right way to go. I believe that the 6 per cent extra resources per year in real terms for social service authorities over a three-year period, plus "incentivisation", is the best way forward. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is better to use a carrot than a stick. Some sticks are needed and the financial incentives will work in the sense that the more enthusiastic local authorities are and the greater their ability to hasten the appropriate discharge of patients from hospitals, the more resources they will have for other services. The less local authorities are able to do that, the fewer resources they will have. I believe that that is the right kind of incentive.

In relation to care homes, we have all looked with concern at the viability of some of them. I believe, and it is our expectation, that the resources that we are now making available to the social service authorities will enable, where appropriate, an increase in fees to care homes to take place.

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little harder on the issue of where the present National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill stands. In light of the White Paper, to what extent will that Bill and its provisions become redundant? The Minister sounded somewhat complacent about the timing of the legislation to come. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will be aware, as I am, that promises have been made to improve the NHS by the time of the next election. Four years is not a great deal of time when primary legislation is required.

The Minister referred to the training of doctors and consultants. Will he say a little more about the Government's plans? Perhaps I should declare an interest as president of the University of Wales College of Medicine. We are anxious to know the Government's plans. Did I understand the Minister to mean that some of the money allocated to the health service could be put directly into social care?

My Lords, on the final point about social care, the funding of social service arrangements to help the discharge of patients will go down the normal route of allocation to local authorities. On the other hand, we have arrangements for the pooling of resources. There is a partnership between the health service, local authorities and care trusts. We are keen to see integrated services. There will be different pools of money, but the specific "incentivisation" of local authorities to improve arrangements for patients when they are discharged will come through the normal local authority allocation route.

In that respect, under the arrangements that are agreed between health authorities and local authorities at a local level, if health services were actually responsible for the problems in terms of discharge, they would face the financial penalty. I want to make it clear that there is no suggestion of simply targeting local authorities and saying that they are the ones to blame and no one else. We want a partnership approach.

On the Bill, I am not complacent, but I was given due warning by the Chief Whip, who reminded me that at this stage I cannot say at what point legislation could be introduced to take forward some of the proposals. What is clear from the Statement is that further primary legislation will be required. I regard the current NHS Bill as a stepping-stone. It contains important measures in relation to patient and public involvement in the health services in Wales, as the noble Lord knows, primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and regulation of the professions. We are anxious to see that enacted.

On the training of doctors, the noble Lord will know that we have seen a considerable increase in the intake of medical schools in the past few years. By the autumn of this year, for example, we estimate that that intake will be 1,250 a year more than in 1997 and that it will increase to 1,950 by 2003. Clearly, as the Statement mentioned, it takes a long time to train a doctor, and even longer for a doctor to become a consultant. That is one of the great inhibitions in expanding the capacity and it is one of the reasons why we look to nurses and to other professions to take on more responsibility. We are making progress and the new contracts that we are negotiating with the leaders of the doctors' profession will also enable us to meet some of the current shortfalls.

My Lords, as someone who has worked in a local authority and a health authority area for many years, I welcome the announcement. I have a question about the timescale. The Minister said that it was not possible to give the House the timescale, which I understand. However, can he tell the House how we are to keep the morale of staff in those services at top notch with the degree of uncertainty that they experience?

I declare an interest as a member of the board and vice-chair of the National Care Standards Commission. That commission has been operating for three weeks and we have just re-organised hundreds of staff into 70 offices. The Minister will know that we do not yet have all the standards in place. While I believe that there is a need for further re-organisation and inspection, timing is crucially important. It is also important for the staff to understand where they stand in relation to their jobs. Managing that is critically important.

The management of change requires sensitivity as it is a delicate task. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we have had huge change. It will affect the delivery of service and the productivity that people can deliver. Often their efforts are redirected into the issues of change rather than into primary care. The National Care Standards Commission inspects the institutions that care for the most vulnerable people in our community. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are considering issuing messages, in some detail, to staff about what this change will mean to them? It is no use having general reassurances about how wonderful they are—we all think they are absolutely wonderful. They need to know what will happen to them tomorrow.

A second point is whether the Minister will consider other IT programmes before developing the health service's new IT programme. I say that from my experience of at least three government IT programmes, which frankly, when they were accepted by the people for whom they were commissioned, were near disasters. We should at least get that right in the next round.

My Lords, in relation to IT we need to learn the lessons of past efforts in central government. Looking back over quite a long time, the NHS has had a number of IT initiatives that have ended in failure. One reason why the NHS moved away from central direction was because of the failure of some central IT projects in years gone by. We need to get the balance right and to have greater central direction. We need to give a good deal of help to local people to work within a system that enables the NHS as a whole to work together and to work across organisational boundaries. Certainly we are seeking advice from across government and the private sector on IT matters. I very much take on board the points raised by the noble Baroness. While we are disappointed with progress in some areas of IT, there have been some significant achievements on which we need to build.

I pay tribute to the staff of the National Care Standards Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement, and indeed, the Audit Commission, as it is important to place on record my gratitude for the outstanding work that has been undertaken. In the case of the Audit Commission, it is universally agreed that the value-for-money studies have been outstanding. We are anxious to ensure that the quality in the new inspectorate is kept to the same high order. I pay particular tribute to the Commission for Health Improvement because, from a standing start, it has undertaken a huge number of reviews. The staff of the National Care Standards Commission have also had to start from a blank sheet of paper in double-quick time.

We want to meet the current organisations very soon to discuss the practicalities of where we are going. In the meantime, we wish to encourage them to carry on the good work, and to work together because many of the changes that we are making can start by organisations collaborating. I know that they already do so very effectively. It is worth remembering that the staff of the current organisations will form the broad bulk of those who will go into the new organisation. We need to talk through the details, but I am anxious to ensure that the people currently in those organisations feel supported and valued.

There has been a clear recommendation from Kennedy. Noble Lords in our debates on the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill asked for an integrated approach, which is welcome as a general principle.

My Lords, it is not a question of only the Government going to the organisation. Will it be possible for the staff, who are the experts, to tell the Government what is going on? Any Government would need their advice.

My Lords, I certainly agree with that. One of the changes in the health service is the development of staff surveys by individual NHS organisations, which will help the NHS locally to take account of the issues raised. Without the staff, we shall not achieve such changes. The key element in our announcement today is the provision of incentives to encourage the staff to deliver the kind of change programme that we want.

Many members of staff have taken part in the development of the NHS Plan and the NHS modernisation board. We are obviously anxious to continue that effective dialogue.

My Lords, the Statement seemed to suggest that someone needing hospital care could shop around between hospitals and determine which one to go to. That all seems fine, but it is extremely difficult for people to get the information that they need to enable them to make that kind of choice.

I have in mind a case that was brought to my attention last week. A patient was due to attend hospital for urgent treatment, but the hospital said that it could not treat him for several months. While that patient waited for treatment, he died. That is not a unique case. If the patient, or the people looking after him, had had information about going to another hospital for treatment, his life might have been spared. How will the system work in practice? If one hospital cannot offer treatment, how will information be conveyed to patients that treatment is available elsewhere? Will their GPs be told? How will information be held centrally so that all patients at all levels of income will know where they can get the treatment that they need?

My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. Without information, it is difficult to see how a patient can have choice. I confirm that GPs must play a crucial role in helping to advise patients on choice and in making judgments about the most suitable hospital to attend.

I accept that at a national level we have to ensure that information is available to enable patients to make an informed choice. One of the purposes of the new health inspectorate is to ensure that this kind of information is provided robustly so that patients can make sound decisions.

We are starting pilots on the choice scheme from July this year for coronary heart disease patients. Anyone who has waited for more than six months for a heart operation will be contacted by a patient care adviser to discuss the options for treatment. Such patients will be offered a shorter wait at another NHS or private hospital, or even the option of treatment abroad.

We are putting in place members of staff who can help patients to make decisions. GPs will have an equally important role. Ultimately, we need to build greater capacity into the health service. As the years go by and we have more beds, more hospitals and more staff, the element of choice will become greater.

My Lords, I speak as a non-executive director of a primary care trust. I welcome the fact that there will be more resources to eliminate the negative budget that we received. Much of the money is already allocated to a number of projects, so will the Minister assure us that, in the auditing and inspection of primary care trusts, sufficient time will be given for us to settle down and get on with our work? Will he also assure us that unnecessary and unsustainable public expectations of immediate and major changes will not arise?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter of primary care trusts. I understand what he says about not wishing to load new organisations with too many responsibilities. Of course, we need to ensure that PCTs are focused on the essential elements of not only producing good services but of commissioning effective services.

Primary care trusts are an essential component of the reform process. That is why it is important that three-quarters of the budget will be spent on PCTs by 2004. I know from our debates on primary care trusts that some noble Lords caution us about giving that level of resource to PCTs by 2004, but the Government believe in the potential of PCTs and in putting money with GPs who will make essential decisions in the NHS. We must press on with that as urgently as we can.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 10, at end insert—

"( ) Where export controls apply to goods which are within one or more of the categories mentioned in paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule, the guidance issued under section 7 shall have regard to their issues relating to sustainable development and to any possible consequences of the goods being controlled that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 3 of the Schedule."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. Both amendments are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Razzall. Both issues deal with sustainable development.

In Committee Her Majesty's Government introduced significant redrafting of the section on guidance and the schedule of purposes, apparently in response to concerns expressed about the way sustainable development was treated in the Bill. Unfortunately, the Government refused to make the simple changes that have long been proposed to include sustainable development as one of the relevant consequences in the schedule, which would place the issue on a similar footing as concerns about human rights, regional stability and terrorism.

Sustainable development was included as a relevant consequence when the Bill was first published in draft form. However, in every subsequent incarnation it has been omitted. The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to provide belt and braces. When a similar amendment was introduced at the last stage of the Bill, the Minister raised significant concerns about its suitability. We have attempted to redraft the amendment to allay his anxieties.

The Minister raised the issue of "widgets". Amendment No. 1 was drafted to exclude the consequence of the Secretary of State having to review every single item that could conceivably need an export control order. However, a real concern was raised as to the phraseology used in the amendment drafted by the Government at the last stage. In Clause 7(4) the words "if any" were added.

The Minister expressed his opinion that the words "if any" give the Secretary of State the ability to make judgments over what was and what was not important while being directed over matters which would be considered relevant under the Bill. However, there is anxiety that the ability of the Secretary of State to make such decisions is far too broad and would mean that certain aspects that many feel should fall within the ambit of the Bill could fall outside it. The purpose of the amendment therefore is to add to the schedule categories which are already covered by the Bill thereby avoiding the widget problem but at the same time ensuring that the Secretary of State takes into consideration sustainable development.

Amendment No. 1 is particularly concerned with the problem that arises within different departments in government; that is, that one department has one view and another department can take a different view. That is clearly illustrated by the situation in Tanzania. Even since the last stage of this Bill matters have developed. The air transport control system seems to have fallen foul of the World Bank, which does not believe it to be a good investment. It is being scrutinised by the International Commission for Aviation. Also the DfID has frozen a £10 million development loan to one of the poorest countries in the world pending the outcome.

If I am wrong on any of the aspects of Tanzania—obviously it is more complicated than can be envisaged superficially—that does not change the underlying need for the amendments. There will always be a difficulty between the granting of an export licence which is driven by exporters and the real need of developing countries not to have exported to them armaments, weapons systems or their components which could jeopardise their sustainable development. I beg to move.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on moving this amendment. In doing so I remind the House that I am closely involved with the work of Saferworld and Oxfam, two organisations deeply concerned about the issues in this Bill.

I have absolutely no doubt that my noble friend shares our common objective. Does he not accept that, as so well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the insertion of the words "if any" creates a loophole? Does he not also agree that it would be unfortunate if, in the context of his own goodwill, we accepted wording which enabled some successor totally to disregard the issues which concern us today and which are spelt out in the schedule.

That is the point. The problem is not the people in place at the moment; it is those who may be in place in the future. If we are of serious intent we should have watertight wording, not ambivalent wording. That is why Amendment No. 1 is so crucial in what it seeks to achieve for the long-term future.

My Lords, at Second Reading we supported the idea of sustainable development. We were pleased to see the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Razzall. We on these Benches support the amendments.

My Lords, I too welcome Amendment No. 1. I do so because I want to remind the House of the moral presumption against the export of goods that are harmful and the moral presumption in favour of poverty relief, accessibility to health, education and welfare, and human flourishing.

If we are serious as a nation as well as a government about halving global poverty by the year 2015, there will need to be greater effort not only on the humanitarian front of the voluntary organisations, but also diplomatically, economically and politically to reduce the number of countries embroiled in armed conflict, and to improve the conditions in which regeneration can occur and be sustained. So I am glad to see that the criteria for sustainable development are written deeply into the Bill. We need to ensure that they stay.

The issue of sustainable development is plainly recognised by Her Majesty's Government. Yesterday I sat through a debate calling attention to the Green Paper, Planning: delivering a fundamental change. Several speakers referred to the importance of taking sustainable development into account when considering planning in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord. Falconer, in his winding speech—I am never sure why it is called "winding" and not "winding-up"—spoke of "planned sustainable development" and "delivering sustainable development" within the UK.

However, the weight given to sustainable development in the Bill—it is the weight that is important—is weak. I recognise that the Bill involves controlling certain goods and taking sustainable development into account, and that it is not about sustainable development per se. I heard that in Committee. But the responsibility currently placed on the Secretary of State is inadequate.

In Committee on 4th March, at col. 100 of Hansard, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that,

"in controlling the items specified in the schedule table, we [the Government] should apply the sustainability criterion. That is why we put that in the relevant clause, where it is made clear that it is absolutely mandatory that it should be considered … We have made it clear that it is a mandatory requirement".

However, the Bill currently reads,

"consideration, if any, to he given".

I am not a lawyer. I am a "bear with little brain" when it comes to the legal mind. But to the lay mind there seems to be a considerable gap and weight of intention between it being "absolutely mandatory" that sustainable criterion should be considered and,

"consideration, if any, to be given … to".

The amendments give us the opportunity to ensure that the Secretary of State specifies that regard shall be had to what I hope noble Lords will agree is a significant matter. If we are serious about halving world poverty, we need to strengthen our legislation regarding what should and should not be exported and imported, taking into account the purposes and outcomes of such exports and the consequences of granting licences for them.

My Lords, I too support Amendment No. 24. The words "if any" add very little. They create flexibility which is not really required. The flexibility could easily be gained in the phrasing of the guidance given by the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, they open up a loophole for future Secretaries of State to take advantage of a wording that really should not be there.

My Lords, I reiterate the view of my noble friend Lord Judd that all those who support these amendments, particularly those who speak from these Benches, are aiming in the same direction. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others have talked about those controversial words "if any". The noble Lord also brought widgets into the argument. The amendments are very useful in that they restrict the application of matters of sustainable development to a list of items—to none of which could the word "widgets" be applied. The table to the Schedule, entitled "Relevant Consequences", lists the serious matters that have to be taken into account: national security; peace, security or stability in any region of the world; the carrying out of acts that facilitate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction; internal repression in any country; and breaches of human rights. The amendment should solve my noble friend's question. I very much hope that it will be agreed to.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 24. They have not been degrouped. It is easiest to take the two amendments together. Both amendments relate to the provisions in the Bill which oblige the Government to address issues relating to sustainable development and those in the Schedule's table entitled "Relevant Consequences" when issuing guidance under Clause 7.

Amendment No. 24 is very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. It would replace the existing requirement in Clause 7(4) that guidance issued under the Bill must include guidance about the "consideration (if any)" to be given to sustainable development and the issues in the Schedule table, with a requirement that the guidance must state that "regard shall be had" to such issues.

Amendment No. 1, if I have understood it correctly, has a slightly more focused intention, which is to provide that guidance issued under Clause 7 in relation to export controls on military goods shall have regard to sustainable development and to the issues covered in the table to the Schedule. I believe that Amendment No. 1 has been tabled in the spirit of compromise, as a possible alternative to Amendment No. 24, on the basis that it seeks to meet some of the concerns that the Government expressed in Committee about the consequences that would follow from having a blanket requirement to have regard to sustainable development, and all the issues covered in the Schedule table, in the assessment of every individual export licence application.

If that is the case, I very much welcome the noble Lords' attempt to deal with the Government's previously stated concerns on this issue. However, as I shall explain in more detail in due course, Amendment No. 1 does not meet all the concerns that I identified in Committee. Perhaps I may concentrate on Amendment No. 24, as it raises the key question of whether the Bill as it now stands adequately provides for a lasting commitment on all future governments to address sustainable development and the issues listed in the Schedule table in the export licensing process.

Let me say at once that I have sympathy with the noble Lord's aim in tabling the amendment and with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the matter. I have no more confidence than he or the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have in the goodwill of my successors in other governments on this issue. We certainly do not want to leave open the possibility that a future government could undo our achievements in securing a clear commitment to sustainable development and all the other issues covered in the EU code in the UK arms export control regime. However, we are confident that we have not left open such a possibility. Amendment No. 24 is not necessary to prevent such a possibility arising in the future.

Before explaining the reasons why the revised wording suggested by the noble Lord is not necessary, let me first explain why we have worded Clause 7(4) as we have and why it needs to be retained in the Bill.

The Government do not deny that there is a difference in effect between the revised wording proposed by the noble Lord for Clause 7(4) and that which the Government moved in Committee. The requirement that guidance published under Clause 7 must include guidance,

"about the consideration (if any) to be given"

to particular matters, provides a degree of flexibility which a requirement that such guidance must state that "regard shall be had" to those matters would not. I should like to explain why the Government consider that this flexibility is necessary.

As I said in Committee, the Government need to be able to take common-sense decisions and to reach a judgment when taking export licensing decisions that particular considerations are simply not relevant in certain cases and situations. However, the amendment would require this and future governments to consider sustainable development and every issue covered by the Schedule table whenever they exercised licensing powers under the Bill.

A worrying consequence of that would be to compromise significantly the Government's capacity to comply with future international obligations and commitments relating to export control. I stress that in pursuing these it is not necessarily for the UK to decide to which factors regard must be had in the taking of export licensing decisions. That depends on the exact terms of the obligation or commitment. However, Amendment No. 24 would oblige the Government to have regard to sustainable development and all the Schedule issues in all cases.

The amendment would also fetter more generally the Government's ability to take common-sense decisions that, in certain cases, consideration of sustainable development and issues in the Schedule table are not relevant. For example, a proposed export of a single military vehicle to a developed country such as the United States would clearly not raise sustainable development issues. Nor would sustainable development, and several of the issues in the Schedule table, be relevant in the consideration of most applications for a licence to export objects of cultural interest.

However, the Government would not be able to say, "We will not take account of sustainable issues in these cases" and give guidance on it, because the legislation would require them to say that they would take account of sustainable development and those issues. That is why the reference to "consideration (if any)" in Clause 7(4) is needed. It allows the Government to retain the capacity—

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. What he has just said is exactly what puzzles us. If it is not really necessary to take the issue of sustainable development seriously, there is no need to have the words "if any" in the Bill. Sane, sensible officials, sitting down to consider how to process this matter would very quickly see that in this issue it was not relevant. Why on earth do we have to put in the words "if any", thus giving some future Minister the opportunity to say, "In this case, not at all"?

My Lords, perhaps I may respond to a point made by the right reverend Prelate. We are considering legislation; we are not considering what a sensible lay person might think about the matter. When the legislation of a country says, "You must consider sustainable development", it must be considered. That is what laws are about. A government cannot say, "I am sorry, we are not going to consider it"; they must consider it. They cannot give guidance to say that they will not. Legislation sets certain requirements on governments and civil servants. It is therefore extremely important that the wording is flexible in that manner.

My Lords, is it not possible for a Minister to consider the issue of sustainable development and conclude that it does not apply to a case? Would it not be reassuring to know that the Minister had done so before deciding that it did not apply?

My Lords, I hope that that was the point that I made. In those circumstances, we could not then say to people in a sensible manner, "In the following sort of cases, under the regulations, we shall not consider sustainable development". We cannot give practical guidance to people to say, "No, in these cases"—such as sending a particular vehicle to America—"we shall not spend our time and you need not be concerned about our taking sustainability into account". That is what we are trying to deal with here, and it is not all right to say that civil servants and Ministers can just ignore or not take seriously what the legislation states.

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way again, and I apologise for interrupting again. We are not saying that they should not consider it; we are saying that early in the course of considering it, they would realise that it was not relevant and that there was no case.

My Lords, I have already answered that point. It is a question not only of considering it and saying whether it is relevant but of whether we can give sensible guidance.

It is true that Amendment No. 1, if accepted as an alternative to Amendment No. 24, would provide less of a blanket requirement on government to have regard to all issues in every case. However, it would retain the blanket requirement in respect of export controls on military goods. That would introduce a damaging rigidity to the arms export licensing process, obliging the Government to consider sustainable development and every issue in the schedule's table in considering every arms export application, even where one or more of those issues was clearly not relevant—such as in the example that I gave of a military vehicle to be exported to a developed country. I also point out that the need not to compromise our ability to implement international commitments under the Bill applies equally to controls on military goods as to other categories of export control.

However, we are confident that the words "if any" in Clause 7(4) would not allow a future government freedom to decide to ignore sustainable development, or any of the issues in the schedule's table, by saying simply. "We have considered sustainable development and concluded that it has no place in consideration of any export licences". The Bill makes clear that it will be a requirement on any government to issue guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers and that that guidance must address sustainable development and the other important issues covered in the schedule's table.

Moreover, Clause 7(5) requires that the Government "shall have regard" to that guidance when taking decisions on export licences. I emphasise that Clause 7(5) determines the status of the guidance, not Clause 7(4), which purely sets out what must be in the guidance.

I also reiterate the important point that were a future government to decide not to take sustainable development considerations into account in arms exports, not only would Clause 7 require them to publish that decision and so take it in the full glare of parliamentary scrutiny, but the Bill would also require them to justify such a decision. In that context, it is important to remember that the issue of sustainable development and the issues listed in the schedule's table are all reflected in the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, which represents a binding political commitment to our EU partners.

While the UK is a member of the European Union and committed to the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, it is difficult to see how any future government could ignore any of the criteria, including that of sustainable development, without facing a real likelihood of successful challenge in the courts. Moreover, the explicit reference to the consolidated criteria included in Clause 7(8) and the accompanying statement that the criteria,

"shall (until withdrawn or varied under this section) be treated as guidance",

under the Bill reduce still further a future government's room to deviate from any part of the criteria.

None the less, I recognise that concern continues to be felt about the possible intention or likely effect of the words "if any" in Clause 7(4). At my meeting last Friday with the UK Working Group on Arms, the group referred to advice obtained by it on the issue from Matrix Chambers and specifically to the suggestion in Matrix Chambers' advice that it might be helpful if a Minister were to spell out clearly in debate that the intention behind the inclusion of the words "if any" is not to open up a loophole in the Bill. The group asked whether I would be prepared to give such an undertaking before the House at Report. I told it that I should be pleased to do so, and I am happy to put on record today that the intention behind the words "if any" in Clause 7(4) is purely to enable the Government to make commonsense decisions about the circumstances in which sustainable development, or any of the schedule issues, would not be relevant 'co a licensing decision.

Not only are the words "if any" not intended to create a loophole allowing the Government to ignore any particular issue, we are confident that they do not offer any government the opportunity to ignore either sustainable development or any of the schedule issues, where that would be contrary to our obligations under the EU code of conduct.

I turn to the question of Tanzania as it relates to sustainability. I make clear that the Government would not have granted a licence in that case if to do so had been in contravention of the consolidated criteria. Sustainability was an issue that was taken into account and a judgment was reached on that basis.

In conclusion, I repeat that the Government acknowledge that the wording in Clause 7(4) provides a degree of flexibility which the wording proposed in the amendments does not. But I hope that noble Lords will accept my explanation of' why that flexibility is needed and that they will also accept my categoric assurance that it does not offer a means by which a future government could choose to disregard sustainable development or the schedule issues in the export licensing process. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply and for his helpful assertion about the use of the words "if any". However, he finished by discussing the need for flexibility. That is the key issue about which many of us are concerned: the flexibility to decide what is and what is not important. To be granted, an export licence must fulfil many criteria. It is not beyond the wit of man to provide a box to be filled in. Although the clear example that the Minister gave of a military vehicle for America is cut and dried, the same cannot be said of many other cases.

I was also interested in the Minister's view that the intricacies of legislation are way beyond the layman.

My Lords, I did not say that. I said simply that approaching these matters by saying what I as a layman would think might be right is no kind of defence in law or a good argument in most legal cases, in which people tend to think that w hat the law says is what is important. Ministers cannot take a cavalier view about legislation and simply say that we ignore it because it is not sensible.

My Lords, I apologise if I gave the wrong impression, but what the Minister said emphasises my problem with the expression "if any". Although the Minister has given a definition that the Government will observe of "if any", if it were to be argued in court it would be a difficult case and not cut and dried.

The Minister raised my example of Tanzania. The World Bank was not in favour of that loan and it will be interesting to hear what the International Civil Aviation Organisation has to say about what is actually a military air traffic control system.

This is a very good Bill. We support it, and I mean no criticism of it in introducing belt and braces. I make no insinuation that the Government have anything but the highest view of this. However, I believe that there is a loophole here and that it could be used. The matter could end up in court. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on the issue.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 11, leave out "An order under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State may by order"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. These grouped amendments are technical, drafting amendments that are needed in order to make the appropriate distinctions between the powers in the Bill in respect of areas within national competence, and those in respect of the implementation of directly applicable Community controls in areas of Community competence.

Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 11 introduce a series of similar amendments to Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4. These make it clear that an order made under the Bill introducing export, transfer, trade or technical assistance controls is different from an order under Clause 1(5), 2(5), 3(6) or 4(5) giving effect to directly applicable controls imposed by Community regulation. In the case of the latter, not all of the subsidiary provisions in the clauses should apply. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 to Clause 3 similarly make clear that subsections (5) and (7) do not apply to the clause as a whole as they do not apply in respect of orders under Clause 3(6) but apply only in respect of controls introduced under the Bill within areas of national competence.

Amendment No. 12 is a consequential of Amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 11, as I have explained, makes clear that an order introducing trade controls will not be made under the clause as a whole, but will either be made under Clause 4(1) that allows for controls to be introduced under national law, or under Clause 4(5), which provides for the introduction of provisions in connection with controls introduced by a directly applicable Community provision. This means that it is necessary for the whole definition of what is meant by,

"activities which facilitate the acquisition, disposal or movement of the goods",

contained in Clause 4(7) to apply directly to Clause 4(5), as well as orders introducing controls within national competence. Amendment No. 12 achieves that aim.

As noble Lords are probably aware, the amendments before the House are very technical in nature. However, they are needed to ensure an appropriate distinction is made between our national powers and those that derive from Community obligations. I therefore invite noble Lords to support them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 2, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of section (Academic. Freedom),"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 10. Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are simply paving amendments, although one of them is of slightly more substance and I shall deal with it later. The purpose of these paving amendments is to make way for Amendment No. 10, which I have no hesitation in describing as major and of the utmost importance both for academic freedom and for scientific research; and, indeed, for constitutional freedom.

The content of the main amendment has been altered from what was discussed in Committee. We have sought to take into account the words and advice of the Minister. I have also taken account of numerous further briefings. The amendment incorporates the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, in her Committee stage amendments and I am very pleased to see the noble Baroness's name attached to the current amendments.

I am not just speaking for the two of us; I am speaking on behalf of Universities UK, formerly known as the Council of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and for the Association of University Teachers, which represents 45,000 academic and academic-related staff; and, indeed, for the Foundation for Information Policy Research. Therefore, I can say that these amendments speak for a wide branch of academia, who feel most strongly about the issue. It is a subject of the gravest concern and of the highest anxiety to the whole of scientific academia.

Despite the credentials of this important amendment, it was arbitrarily—I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying so—dismissed by the Government. There was not even an offer to find a way to meet the justifiable fears of those who, through this amendment. seek the protection of Parliament.

The new clause proposed by the Minister in Amendment No. 22 I can only describe it as pathetic and meaningless. I ask noble Lords to consider the idea that the Secretary of State should,

"have regard to the need to avoid any unreasonable restriction"!

We all know about unreasonable restraint; indeed, we all know about "unreasonable". But we just have to get on with it. The fears I have mentioned were not allayed by the anodyne words of the Minister in his response in Committee. As a result, I received even more briefing from academia. Therefore, I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to consider the current amendment.

As noble Lords are aware, the Bill deals with controls on the export of goods and equipment—from weapons to items of cultural importance. It also deals with the export of technology. Moreover, under Clauses 2 and 3, it ventures into the fields of intangibles, such as information, and, as it stands, into the field of thoughts and ideas.

The amendments and my proposed new clause revolve around the principles of freedom of expression, freedom of teaching, and freedom of research. Those freedoms are fundamental human rights to which the political objectives of the state should normally be subservient. Unless my amendments, or others incorporating the same principles, are included in the legislation, then, despite the certificate given by the Secretary of State in the preamble to the Bill, I have no doubt at all that it would not stand up to the light of a challenge under the convention on human rights.

The extension of the control of export of goods to the control of intangibles—the control of thoughts and ideas—is a radical step, unheard of in a democracy. It has serious constitutional implications. Goods are exported if they are physically moved out of the country. It is physically impossible to control ideas. But that is what the Government are trying to do. By virtue of Clause 2(2)(c), they are even attempting to control the exchange of ideas within the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that a solid body of academia is totally opposed to some of the Government's proposed provisions, which are inappropriate in a country where universities have been centres of learning, research and discovery for over 900 years. As drawn, the Bill will at the least inhibit the latter; at the worst, it will reduce the ability of our universities to teach future generations. Moreover, it will drive undergraduates to study elsewhere in the world. By preventing the export of ideas, I suggest that it will also result in graduates and researchers exporting themselves elsewhere to carry out their work.

Perhaps I may now explain the main provisions of my amendments. Amendment No. 4 proposes the deletion of Clause 2(2)(c) and (d). Together, those paragraphs give the Government power to control what the Bill calls "the transfer of technology", which includes teaching technological subjects to anyone inside the United Kingdom where there is reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom. But the teachings of our universities and colleges are expected to be used outside the United Kingdom. Never mind the thousands of British scientists and technicians who have travelled the world for hundreds of years taking their knowledge and skills with them. What on earth do the Government think that the thousands of foreign students who come to this country every year will do with the technology that they acquire here? They will naturally take it back home and use it either there, or elsewhere in the world.

It is undesirable, I accept, that the citizens of some countries should be taught certain subjects—atomic science, or aspects of biology or chemistry—that could be translated into the manufacture of chemical or biological weapons, or that they should receive instruction enabling them to fly aircraft into skyscrapers. Of current vital and commercial importance is the science of cryptology and authentication codes. They were first devised in 1964 to prevent the misuse of atomic weapons by potential Dr Strangeloves. But today we all use them on the remote controls in our cars.

That is a minor but telling example of how small businesses exporting common-place goods and services in the public domain may unwittingly fall foul of wide-sweeping regulations and their owners may be exposed to possible criminal sanctions. The encryption of electronic documents will play a vital part in international commerce in the future and perhaps, together with other wide-ranging categories of scientific knowledge, the Government are right to insist that care is taken about with and to whom sensitive information is shared or taught.

If as a matter of policy the Government want to prohibit students from this or that country from coming here to study this or that subject, the onus of exercising that control must rest with the Government and not with the teaching institutions which have neither the skills nor the resources to screen their potential students. They have no means of controlling what students will do with their knowledge once they have completed their courses. Indeed, the whole concept that once you have imparted knowledge or information to someone, you can control what he does with it is such manifest nonsense that the whole of the two subsections to which I refer are completely unenforceable absurdities. Do we seriously expect our universities to ask their chemistry students whether they intend to make poison gas?

The provision is complete control-freakery, raised to the umpteenth degree and totally impractical to enforce to boot. If the Government want to control who is taught by whom, as they control who comes into the country, except perhaps via the Sangatte Camp and Eurotunnel, the instrument that they must use is visas—the issuance of visas.

In a letter which the Minister wrote to Dr Ross Anderson of Cambridge University on 28th February, he said:

"There are no powers in the Bill to license foreign students. The Bill is not designed to enable the introduction of a compulsory scheme to vet students".

Apart from noting the qualification about a compulsory scheme, and whatever the Minister may believe the Bill is or is not designed to do, the clear wording of the Bill unquestionably means that there is to be some form of control on the entry of some students from some countries if they want to study particular subjects.

Before the Minister in his response tries to suggest that I have got it all wrong, I invite him to look at the minutes of a meeting which took place on 21st September last between two of his officials, a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and another from the Department for Education and Skills on the one side and four representatives of Universities UK on the other. I shall not trouble the Minister or your Lordships with the five pages of the minutes, but I shall gladly make them available to anyone who wants to see them.

In essence, the points being made by the Government were:

"The clause has now been modified … and it now states that a licence will be necessary only where it is known or the Government has informed the institution that there is an intention to use subjects in relation to a weapon-of-mass-destruction programme".

The official went on to say that the onus has shifted from the institution to the Government. Contrary to what the official says, subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d) of Clause 2 have not altered by one single punctuation mark between the time the Bill was introduced in the other place on 26th June 2001 and today. And nowhere does it say that the onus is on the Government to notify the universities about anything. In fact, the Government in Committee in your Lordships' House totally opposed any modification to these provisions.

The representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry also said that the need for a licence would apply only to particular end users. It is abundantly clear that contrary to what the Minister told Dr Anderson in his letter of 28th February, the Bill will introduce a system of compulsory vetting of some students and I hope that in the light of the contents of the meeting to which I have referred, the Minister will not try to persuade your Lordships to the contrary.

It is also clear that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which shifts the onus of vetting and licensing away from the universities—

My Lords, will the noble Baroness say which part of the Bill suggests that there is any system in it for the licensing of foreign students as opposed to licences which will be required by the person who is passing over the information? The whole nature of the Bill is about actions which pass information over. There are licences in that respect, but they are quite distinct from a system of licensing of students.

My Lords. I shall continue with my speech and come back to that point in a moment. That is why my Amendment No. 4 unequivocally calls for the rejection of subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d).

I shall return to another aspect of those subsections when I explain subsection (4) of the new clause which I am proposing as Amendment No. 10. In view of their importance I should now like to explain them paragraph by paragraph but as shortly as possible.

Subsection (1) begins with the preamble restricting the right to control academic freedom except in three cases. The first is if such restrictions are imposed by any other statute. I have in mind, for example, the Official Secrets Act. The second is if such control is required by virtue of any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom. I have deliberately stressed that it must be a treaty obligation because treaties receive a cursory examination by Parliament. I do not want to see the Act circumvented by a vague undertaking given by the third secretary in some remote embassy, possibly without authority. Thirdly, I have inevitably had to accept that the sovereignty of our ancient Parliament is now subject to the dominion of Brussels.

With those caveats, subsection (1) restricts the right of the Government to make control orders on the transmission of thoughts and information in three cases. However, as I have said, there will be found to be a fourth when we come to the stand-alone provisions of subsection (4). The three instances where the Secretary of State cannot make control orders are, first, where the information is already in the public domain—and it is not necessary for me to explain that. If technological information is already in the public domain, it is a pointless exercise to try to ban its further dissemination. Phrases such as "putting the genie back in the bottle" or "putting the toothpaste back in the tube" spring to mind.

Secondly, the Secretary of State should not be able to prevent the placing of information in the public domain, including for patent and copyright purposes. That is censorship of the highest order and once again there is no practical means of enforcing such a ban. In these days when one can surf the Internet and find out how to make atomic bombs—at least in theory because, of course, the resources needed are well beyond the means of the average do-it-yourself practitioner—any ban on anonymously opening up a website is impossible to police. In fact, you do not have to use the Internet. Apparently, as we read in the newspaper last week, you can find it at the Public Record Office, courtesy of the Ministry of Defence, one of the agencies which is supposed to monitor licence applications.

Finally, I propose in the interests of academic freedom that the Government should not have the power to censor what may be taught. That is the very power they are seeking—or, if I do them an injustice, the power they will unwittingly have taken by the Act. Now that they have been told, I expect them to disclaim it and put it beyond their reach.

During the meeting to which I referred a moment or two ago, the senior representative of the DTI said, according to the minutes, that:

"There was no question that undergraduate studies would be affected by the proposed legislation, and that lecturing would also be unaffected as lectures would be treated as putting the matter in the public domain".

That interpretation, incidentally, reinforces my argument about paragraph (b) because at the meeting the DTI accepted that placing material in the public domain could not be banned. Unfortunately, nowhere does the Bill yet contain that inhibition, but it will if my amendment is accepted.

Your Lordships will have noticed that I do not seek to empower the academics to run amok with what they teach. I propose to prohibit the dissemination of information which they know or—and here the onus is on the teacher—which they ought to have known is intended for use in connection with the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons and similar nasties.

At this point I want to tell the House that this morning I was informed that the Minister was lobbying noble Lords who had been supportive of my amendment in Committee in order to suggest that it was flawed because the list of wicked purposes in my new clause was simply not long enough. However, it is taken word for word from Article 4 of the Dual Use Regulation of the European Community and we chose those words specifically to meet the criticism based on the article which the Minister made in Committee. I am surprised that having telephoned other people about it he did not get in touch with me. Had he done so, we might have been able to talk about the matter.

I have deliberately not used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction"—

My Lords, I must ask the noble Baroness whether the 10-minute conversation we had in the corridor this morning was not one about exactly this issue. I explained exactly why I had grave reservations. I shall explain those later to the House. I explained that they were not about that particular aspect but about the fundamental issue of academics being taken out of the Bill altogether.

My Lords, if the noble Lord had waited just a few moments longer, I would have told the House that I did meet him in the corridor some two hours ago, at which point we spoke for 10 minutes on another matter. However, he did not give me a chance to say it.

I have deliberately not used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction", which is what I said to the noble Lord earlier. I had understood that the noble Lord was concerned about that, but he said that he was not. My researches tell me that some governments, including ours and that of the United States, are conducting a kind of Dutch auction to define how many people can be killed before a weapon can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. I believe that, at this stage, the figure might be as low as 25. That would mean that a bus running amok in Oxford Street possibly could be so defined. There is no purpose in that.

A few moments ago the noble Lord said that I did not mention our conversation. I have mentioned it and I understand that the noble Lord is concerned that my list is not wide enough. That is why I have responded to that for the benefit of those noble Lords whom the noble Lord has already lobbied.

The noble Lord's last-minute concern was that subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause would allow an ill-disposed academic to put dangerous information on to the Internet and then pretend that that had been done, "in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research". I should point out that nothing could prevent that being done from an anonymous website in a remote place outside the EU.

More than that, I am legally advised that my carefully drafted clause, which limits my exception to what is done in the ordinary course of academic teaching, along with the further provision that the person must or ought to know that what he is doing may be used for one of the bad purposes I have described, will prevent any such defence. Aside from that, such bad faith action would probably be caught under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts.

Perhaps I may return to the Bill. New subsection (1)(c) allows academics to teach, but restricts them when they know, or ought to know, that what they are teaching could be used for one of the bad purposes that I have comprehensively defined in the clause. Subsection (2) reaffirms the powers of the Comptroller-General under Section 22 of the Patents Act 1977 to prohibit the publication of information in a patent application which might be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public. Subsection (3) operates in a negative way compared with the rest of the new clause. It allows the Secretary of State to make a control order against transferring information or technology outside the EC where the transferor knows or ought to know that they could be used for the undesirable purposes I mentioned earlier.

Finally, I turn to new subsection (4). It underlines the whole concept of the freedom to teach students from abroad or who might go abroad with their knowledge. Perhaps I may refer to a regulation—I shall need to take a deep breath to recite this, although I have had to take several deep breaths in the course of my remarks—Council Regulation (EC) No. 1334/2000 of 22nd June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology. The first preamble reads:

"Whereas dual use items (including software and technology) should be the subject of effective control when they are exported from the Community".

No one would argue with that. However, Chapter 2, Article 3 is of particular interest. It provides specifically that the regulation does not apply to the supply of services or the transmission of technology if that supply or transmission involves the cross-border movement of persons.

Noble Lords will recall that in the days of the Soviet Union, emigration visas were frequently denied on the grounds that the applicant was possessed of certain vital information. Quite rightly, the EC is going to make it clear that those pretexts will not inhibit the free movement of people. It was also suggested to me, perhaps facetiously, that without it a person facing deportation to somewhere outside the EC could prevent it by having the formula for sarin gas tattooed on to a part of his person; I shall not say where.

In this series of amendments I have met the somewhat specious arguments produced by the Government at the previous stage. In response to a question then put to me by the noble Lord, he will see that subsections (2)(c) and (d) enable students to be licensed, a point with which we did not agree. His arguments were designed to support the Government's apparent desire to subject the whole of academia to the rigid controls of Whitehall. I have placed the onus of ensuring that undesirable students are kept out fairly and squarely on the Government, which is where it belongs. It should not be for the universities to have to go through such a procedure. It is for the Government to grant, refuse or cancel visas.

I have tried to produce a rational, practical arid, above all, credible regime which prevents the export of dangerous knowledge and technology while maintaining responsible academic freedom, something this country is famous for. I beg to move.

My Lords, my name is attached to all the amendments in this grouping and I should like to speak to them. We do not dispute the assurances with regard to academic freedom given to us in Committee by the Minister, but through this series of amendments we seek to put those assurances on to the face of the Bill.

These problems have arisen because advances in technology mean that, today, the concept of the "transfer of technology" is no longer a matter of the physical passing-over of equipment, plans or blueprints. Technology now comprises processes of both the physical and the biological sciences. The Bill is applied deliberately to "technology of any description". The transfer of technology is also defined very broadly to include oral communication, telephone calls, e-mails, letters and data transfer via computer.

Given the range of technologies today—a whole set of data can be transferred via computer from one country to another—and given the ease with which technologies can be transferred by electronic means, noble Lords will recognise that the potential range of intangible goods covered by Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill—research ideas, software, course materials such as handouts., lecture notes and slides, as well as academic papers and exchanges between academics in the process of collaborative research—is huge. Again, potentially Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State powers of prior review over relevant scientific publications. In deciding whether to grant a licence, the DTI will have to make such a review.

The Government have given us considerable assurances that this is not their intention. They say that the Bill is to apply only to a very narrow range of academic research that could be caught by its provisions and that anything in the public domain, including lectures, lecture notes and handouts, would certainly not be caught. It is to apply only to certain narrow areas of sensitive information where the person concerned either knows or has been informed by the Secretary of State that the area is sensitive and thus one in which they should take care about telling others about what they are doing.

That is fine and we accept those assurances. However, we want to see the assurances put on the face of the Bill. Regulations have been proposed and the assurances are to be incorporated into them. Those regulations are to be adopted by negative resolution. However, I say to noble Lords that that is not enough. The fact remains that the terminology of the Bill is extremely worrying. Even if we were to accept the assurances of the Government that their intentions are benign, our job in this House is to scrutinise legislation and ensure that future generations are protected from the potential activities of governments that are perhaps less benign. It is important that we—the legislature—do not let the executive get away with passing such wide-ranging powers. It is important that the assurances are not given in regulations, but that they are put on the face of the Bill. That is what this series of amendments seeks to achieve.

We have bent over backwards to take into account the points raised by the Minister in Committee with regard to international treaties. We recognise that there are some areas where information is sensitive. People who have been so informed cannot simply hand over information. We have tried to incorporate that into the amendments. However, we feel very strongly that they should be put on to the face of the Bill. It is for that reason that I urge noble Lords to support the amendments. They are important to basic academic freedom which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, is something that is fundamental to this country. We ought to make it clear to the executive that the legislature does not think that the Government are doing the right thing.

My Lords, we have heard two very passionate and powerful speeches in favour of the amendment and the principle of academic freedom. For much of my life I have been involved with centres of higher education and universities and I would take second place to no one in my commitment to the principle of academic freedom. After the passion and sincerity with which the case has been argued, I have therefore some hesitation in making one or two cautious observations about the amendment as drafted.

I should like those who support the amendment to consider whether it is perhaps drafted too broadly and may inadvertently tip the balance too far away from the measures necessary effectively to control the arms trade.

In her amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, provides exceptions only for restrictions required by any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom or a directive of the Council of the European Community. However, many of the international export control regimes to which the UK belongs—such as the Wassenaar arrangement and the missile technology control regime—are voluntary arrangements not governed by treaties, and so the proposed exceptions would not apply to them. Given that most of our export and related controls derive from the international regimes, that would be extremely damaging. It would mean that the UK might even have to block any future negotiations in those regimes to control intangible transfers. Controlling intangible transfers was rightly hailed as an achievement of the Bill and these developments should not lightly be reversed.

Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause would effectively exempt the academic community from transfer or technical assistance controls entirely except as they relate to weapons of mass destruction. Again I ask those who support the amendment, whom I respect—there is much in the amendment that must be taken seriously—whether this can really be right.

It is not only with controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction that the Bill is concerned. In Clause 2 of the Bill the Government propose to introduce controls on the electronic transfer of military technology, the tangible export of which from the United Kingdom is already controlled. It is highly unlikely that this control will seriously impact on the academic community as any academic involvement in the development of controlled military technology is expected to be very limited.

However, it is important not to create a dangerous loophole in the Bill that would be ripe for exploitation. International research collaboration involving exchange of controlled military technology between industrial establishments would require a licence. I therefore do not understand why it is justifiable to allow the same research project to be carried out unlicensed if it is carried out by an academic establishment.

It is important to strike a balance between protecting the vital cause of academic freedom and introducing the controls necessary to regulate intangible transfers of technology that could lead to proliferation. I am worried that the amendment as drafted is too broad. I believe that while it is not perfect and observations could be made about it, in this instance the amendment brought forward by my noble friend the Minister comes closer to meeting in a balanced way the anxieties so well expressed in Committee.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the spirit in which he has addressed this issue. I declare an interest as an academic.

By far the most interesting and difficult parliamentary conflicts are those which are between right and right. I understand that there is an interest of national security involved here. What is a weapon of war is now a matter which is in some doubt. There can be communication which can be used for purposes genuinely destructive to national security, but it is also true that the academic world is increasingly an international, global phenomenon. As John Winthrop once remarked when about to go to the United States, the Church is universal without respect of countries. The same is true of the universities.

The potential for interference with serious research is very real. How to draft a clause which meets a genuine danger without interfering with necessary freedoms is a problem to which not enough thought has been given by any of us. Let me take a parallel case from 1942. Stamp collecting is as innocent a hobby as one can think of, but my parents in Pennsylvania in 1942 had a cook whose hobby was collecting stamps from battleships posted in port. They thought that sounded a little too interesting. They told the FBI, and the man concerned disappeared one hour before the FBI's appearance. That told me two rather interesting things.

This is very much the kind of problem with which the Minister is forced to grapple, but unfortunately the Bill does not come within 100 miles of addressing it. The Bill is drafted in a style of draftmanship about which I have addressed the House before, the kind of draftmanship which only a weak Parliament could ever have allowed to grow up. Look, for example, at the wording of Clause 2(1):

"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for or in connection with the imposition of transfer controls in relation to technology of any description".

That really is the classic Cambyses clause. The Secretary of State may do whatever he likes. I find it very hard to see what could not be prohibited under those words.

We need to find a way of wording a clause which requires some evidence suggesting guilt in a particular person before the clause comes into force. There is no requirement here to prove the military potential of the information concerned; there is no requirement to show any mens rea in the communicator; there is no requirement to show that the communicator has any suspect record or even any suspect contacts; there is no requirement to show that the person communicating is communicating with a recipient who is suspect. There is no restriction at all on the purposes for which this clause can be invoked. That cannot be right. It must be necessary to show that there is some reason to believe that national security is in danger before the whole hammer apparatus of this clause is brought to bear on restricting the communication.

The Minister offers secondary legislation, but when it comes to reassuring this House with secondary legislation I am afraid that the Government have shot themselves in both feet and several other portions of their anatomy as well. The White Paper on House of Lords reform proposes that we should lose our power to reject secondary legislation. I have put down a string of questions for Written Answer about negative instruments. In the previous Parliament, 0.5 per cent of them were the subject of division in another place and not one was rejected. So the only possibility for the rejection of a statutory instrument is in this House. If the White Paper were put into effect, that would go. There would then exist the genuine possibility of the Government legislating by decree. If we let a clause such as this go forward, we should have sold our birthright for a mess of regulations.

The existence of the White Paper must influence the way in which this House votes on clauses that create the power to make regulations. So long as that sword of Damocles hangs over us, we cannot consider clauses allowing the Government to make regulations with the degree of trust that we have given them in the past. To allow this clause to go forward, one would need a degree of trust so great that I do not think any parliament should allow it to any Minister in recorded history, even if he or she were the best that there had ever been.

My Lords, Oliver Wendell Holmes once memorably said that the right to free speech does not include the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I would add that the right to academic freedom does not include the right to light fires in crowded theatres, nor indeed to publicise new and more fearsome ways of doing so.

In short, I fully recognise—and my academic background is as rich and varied as that of anyone in this House —the need for various kinds of restrictions of the type in the Bill. However, lest we inflict greater damage on society than that which we seek to avoid, we need to be especially careful about how we limit free speech. We need to be especially careful about how we limit academic freedom. The exceptional circumstances need to be spelled out clearly and carefully, and not in sweepingly general terms. That is why—albeit with less passion than some earlier speakers—I support the spirit of this group of amendments.

That said, I share some of the reservations sketched by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the detail of the drafting. Subsection (4), for example, opens unintended loopholes. But the essential point is that amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and others go in the right direction in terms of affirming the need for academic exchanges and processes to be unhindered except in limited, defined and exceptional circumstances.

The Government's alternative amendment, Amendment No. 22, although well-intentioned, simply enjoins that the Secretary of State shall,

"avoid any unreasonable restriction on … the making of information generally available to the public; or … the communication of information that has already been made generally available to the public".

I have complete and utter trust in my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, our exemplary Science Minister. I have trust in my erstwhile colleagues—most of them anyhow—in the Department of Trade and Industry. I have particular trust in the current Secretary of State at the DTI, who has the unique virtue of being an Australian. But times change; people come, and people go. So I am unhappy with sweeping primary legislation and an invitation to trust decisions.

Nor is it a philosophical abstraction to distrust the possible consequences of such legislation. In the United States—and I have had personal experience of this during my 11 years as vice-president for research at Princeton University—similar laws, until they were recently changed, have been used, for instance, to impede pure mathematicians publishing work or presenting papers at conferences which were deemed to have possible reference to cryptography.

Admittedly, the Government's Amendment No. 22 means that, if a civil servant sought to impede academic publication or presentation in this way, I could seek judicial review and almost certainly win. I could even enjoy the adventure of invoking the Human Rights Act and going to The Hague en route to publishing the work several years later. What fun! That is scant consolation in terms of those apprehensions. In summary, I support the amendment, despite what I consider to be significant t problems with the drafting, because I believe that its essential principles are clear.

My Lords, I support the amendment. However, is not the proposal in the Bill to give a Minister of State powers of preview of scientific publications, with powers to regulate, worthy of anathema? I am not an academic, but I have always defended academic freedom. This step does not seen requisite and assuredly goes far too far. It moves towards the inhibition of free trade, not only in goods and services but also in research, opinions and information. We should surely be grateful to those who have tabled the amendment. I shall support it.

My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling aroused by the potential effect of the Bill on academic freedom. The noble Baroness is not right in saying that we have paid no attention to what was said in Committee when we are proposing a specific new clause to deal with the concerns expressed. On the basis of careful legal advice, the Secretary of State and I have made clear our view that the provision is compatible with the Human Rights Act. The idea that the Bill is not compatible with human rights legislation is wrong.

Perhaps I may point out that subsections (2)(c) and (d) of Clause 2 do not cover the licensing of students. The clause contains no power to license students, and no such power is contained in the Bill.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that in a Bill of this kind it is no good pointing to one clause and saying that under its provisions the Secretary of State can do anything, without pointing also to the restrictions, of which he will be well aware, contained in Clause 5 and in the schedule. There, it is clearly delineated—for the first time in a Bill of this sort—that restrictions which have been open-ended in the past are in this case firmly tied to a list of categories of goods to be excluded and to areas covered by the schedule. One has to take the Bill as a whole. One cannot simply point to Clause 2 and say that under its terms the Secretary of State can do anything.

The final point that I draw from the debate is that conversations in the corridors may seem attractive, but they do not always convey information with the exactitude that one would wish. Therefore, I shall again set out clearly what we believe to be wrong with the noble Baroness's amendment.

We have listened to the concerns raised and, as a result, have proposed an amendment on the key issue of academic freedom. Our Amendment No. 22 provides, as we were asked to do, on the face of the Bill the protection of the principle of freedom to publish and to communicate information that has already been published.

So I make it absolutely clear that our Amendment No. 22 will make it almost impossible—except in very rare instances, when it can be justified by the Secretary of State—to restrict information that is already in the public domain or is being put in the public domain. I believe that that is what academic freedom is about. Academic freedom is not about allowing—as the proposed new clause would allow—academics secretly to pass information which is not in the public domain to academics in other countries.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that information which is in the public domain is already there and cannot be removed? His proposed new clause is therefore irrelevant in this respect. The vital point is that the process of scientific development and methodology very often requires the exchange of information between academics in different countries before it is published. That is the basis of our concern about academic freedom.

My Lords, information is put into the public domain in almost all of the cases of academic freedom that we are discussing. People have frequently said, "The provision will stop us publishing information in a journal. It will stop us presenting a paper at a conference". Those are two examples of information being put in the public domain. However, one must distinguish those examples from situations in which information is passed to a person in another country and is restricted to those two people. I shall come to specific examples of the type of information sharing that Amendment No. 3 would allow. They will, I hope, demonstrate that the amendment would put an enormous hole in the Bill.

I should explain why we have taken this approach, as it will enable me to explain our serious difficulties with the approach proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Our amendment addresses the concerns of the academic community about freedom to publish by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to avoid unreasonable restrictions on putting information in the public domain, or communicating material already in the public domain, when making secondary legislation under the Bill. Any order under the Bill which attempted to place an unreasonable restriction on publication or communication could therefore be opposed in the courts.

At the same time, the amendment retains the crucial degree of flexibility required to enable the Government to place restrictions on publication when necessary to control activities that might cause real harm, such as contributing directly to the development or production of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, our amendment applies to all persons and all control orders under the Bill, not just to controls under Clauses 2 and 3 or to the academic community, as Amendment No. 10 does.

I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, shares to some extent the same aim as ours. None the less, it would have a number of very damaging consequences that would undermine the Government's ability to maintain a comprehensive and responsible export control regime. I do not believe that that can be the Noble Baroness's intention.

The amendments provide for protection of information being placed in the public domain or already in the public domain. However, it provides exceptions to this only for restrictions,

"required by any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom or a Directive of the Council of the European Community".

In fact, many of the international export control regimes to which we belong, such as the Wassenaar arrangement, are political commitments. However, as they are also effectively voluntary arrangements not governed by treaties the proposed exceptions would not apply to them. On the other hand, the amendment would permit restrictions on publication or placing information in the public domain if that were required by international treaties, regardless of whether the proposed restrictions were reasonable.

In contrast, as I hope to explain again in more detail later, the Government's amendment applies to all controls under the Bill including those required by the international regimes. Therefore, in that respect, our amendment—which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has described as "feeble"—provides greater protection than does hers. Consequently, in future negotiation of international treaties, UK negotiators will have to consider whether proposed restrictions on freedom of information are reasonable and can be justified.

A consequence of Amendment No. 10 is that its subsection (1)(c) would effectively exempt the academic community from transfer or technical assistance controls entirely, except in so far as they relate to weapons of mass destruction. That would create a significant and unacceptable loophole in the Bill. In fact, we do not intend to introduce any controls on technical assistance other than in relation to weapons of mass destruction. However, we do intend to introduce controls in Clause 2 on the electronic transfer of military technology whose tangible export from the UK is already controlled and which is not in the public domain or classed as basic scientific research.

It is unlikely that that control will impact much on the academic community, as any academic involvement in the development of controlled military technology is expected to be very limited. Nevertheless, given that international research collaboration involving exchange of controlled military technology between industrial establishments would require a licence, we believe that it would he unjustifiable to allow the same research project to be carried out unlicensed if carried out by an academic establishment.

Yet the amendment would permit any academic to transfer controlled military technology overseas freely. Consequently, any academic involved in military research who, perhaps for political reasons, wished to support an overseas regime, such as the Arab or Israeli side in the Middle East, would be able to transfer technology to one or other regime without hindrance by the legislation.

Such a blanket exemption from export controls for certain groups flies in the face of our efforts to implement an effective export control regime. The Quadripartite Committee in another place concurred with this view, stating in its report on the draft Bill that it saw no case for complete exemption of academic activity from export controls. I cannot believe that noble Lords really wish to allow particular groups to transfer technology which can be used to build conventional weapons or for internal repression or terrorism. I am sure that the industrial community would be troubled to discover that the academic community was trusted to send controlled military technology abroad at will while they were not.

I am amazed that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is supporting such an amendment. She must be aware that the above possibility exists as that was the nature of our conversation. I pointed out to her that that would be the effect of her amendments. Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause effectively states that there will be no control on the transfer of information,

"orally or in writing or electronically in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research",

although it does make an exception for nuclear weapons. The amendments would clearly exempt academics from all the Bill's requirements in that regard.

My Lords, the provision does not apply only to nuclear weapons—it applies also to chemical and biological weapons. The provision also very clearly states that it will apply,

"unless the person placing or transferring the data knows or ought to have known that such information is or may be intended for use in connection with",

the development of such weapons. Our amendment precisely deals with the Minister's concern.

My Lords, of course it makes those exceptions; my point is that all other aspects of military technology would therefore not be covered by the Bill. Consequently, as I said, an academic could transfer such information to other countries without restriction. To have that written into this Export Control Bill, which seeks to stop that kind of military information going abroad, seems to me a complete nonsense. The Liberal Democrat Party has pushed strongly to tighten up the Bill to make it tougher for this technology to go abroad. It has pushed for even tighter restrictions on technology being sent abroad to be used in the way we are discussing. For it then to say that a group of people should not be subject to that control seems to me to make a complete nonsense of the Bill and to go in two completely different directions at the same time.

Subsection (4) of the proposed amendment would also prevent the Government from implementing their proposed controls on weapons of mass destruction in full, and in particular from meeting their commitments enshrined in the European Union Joint Action on technical assistance to weapons of mass destruction programmes agreed in September 2000. A primary purpose of that joint action was to address the question of supply to weapons of mass destruction programmes by persons moving outside the EU.

I turn now to Amendment No. 4. This would prevent the Government from introducing any controls on transfers of technology within the UK where the technology transferred was intended for use outside the UK and would also prevent introduction of controls on transfers of information into the UK where the technology concerned was intended for use outside the UK. Perhaps it may be useful if I begin by explaining why these powers were included in the Bill.

Essentially these provisions are about the export of technology. I think all accept that it is right that an export licence should be required for certain technology such as blueprints and manuals which describe how to build a weapon. Again I think it is generally accepted that if you need a licence to export that technology in physical form, you should also need a licence to export it electronically. But technology—by which essentially we mean knowledge—can also in effect be exported through communications in person. An expert going overseas and drawing up a manual there or directly instructing someone is effectively exporting technology. Again I think that has been accepted as an activity which may be subject to control. But the same expert might communicate exactly the same information to the identical person while in the United Kingdom, or he might telephone that person in the UK while overseas himself. Should that be permitted simply because the location of the individuals is different when exactly the same information is communicated between the same people?

Paragraphs 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) of the Bill are included in order to prevent controls being avoided in this way. It is important to note that these paragraphs of the Bill do not provide a general power to control transfers of technology within the UK or from overseas to the UK. They only allow controls to be imposed where there is reason to believe that the individual transfer in question will result in the technology concerned being used outside the UK. Moreover, like the other controls in the Bill, such controls could only be imposed if required by international obligations or European Community law in relation to military technology, or if they might lead to one of the consequences described in the schedule. Of course, if government Amendment No. 22 is accepted, it will be clear that these powers cannot be used to impose unreasonable restrictions on the publication of information or the communication of information that is already in the public domain.

We recognise that regulating these types of transfers is difficult; that is why we have made clear that the controls we introduce under these provisions in the Bill will be targeted on the areas of greatest concern: namely, weapons of mass destruction and related missile programmes. But we believe that these controls are extremely important in fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, these proposals were strongly supported by the Quadripartite Committee in another place, which described them in its report on the draft Bill as "profoundly significant".

It is worth stopping a moment to consider what the effect of removing paragraphs 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) from the Bill would be in terms of our proposed controls relating to weapons of mass destruction. A UK citizen might know that he could not legally communicate technology relevant to the development of weapons of mass destruction while abroad to a particular individual because he knew of that person's links to a weapons of mass destruction programme. But he would be free to communicate the same information to that person if that person came to the UK. He might do that either in person or by communicating with the proliferator from abroad. I feel sure that the noble Baroness's intention is not to create that kind of loophole.

In conclusion, these amendments would have severe consequences for the Government's proposed controls. The controls set out in the draft dummy orders published last October on the transfer of technology for use in connection with weapons of mass destruction programmes—with which Universities UK has said it is happy—could not be introduced. Neither could our proposed controls on electronic transfers of military technology be introduced in full. The Government simply cannot accept an amendment which would create such huge loopholes in the proposed legislation. An effective export control regime inevitably involves imposing restrictions on certain activities. Although I emphasise that we anticipate the impact on the academic community of these restrictions to be minimal, we maintain strongly that they are necessary.

It is nevertheless possible to provide effective protection for freedom to publish and communicate information in the public domain on the face of the Bill, and Amendment No. 22 will do that. We believe that our amendment strikes the correct balance between the need to protect academic freedom and the need for an effective export control regime. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, my amendment may not be perfect but it could certainly be put right at Third Reading. That would be the appropriate thing to do. The issue of academic freedom is a strong one and I have laid my wares on the table. There is no point in saying anything further. I wish to test the opinion of the House.