|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Amendments made: No. 28, in page 27, line 6, leave out from "involved" to end of line 10 and insert "
(a) the development or production outside the United Kingdom of a nuclear weapon;
(b) the movement of a nuclear weapon into or out of any country or territory;
'is capable of endangering life or causing'
'could be used in an act of terrorism to endanger life or cause'.
Beverley Hughes: Clauses 58 to 75 and schedules 5 and 6 introduce a regime to improve security in laboratories and other places where dangerous substances that could be used as a weapon by terrorists are being held.
Clause 58 identifies the dangerous pathogens and toxinswhich are listed in schedule 5that will be brought within the controls set out in this part of the Bill immediately upon Royal Assent. The amendments limit the exercise of those powers to cases in which the chemicals or substances concerned may be used in acts of terrorism. A definition is added to provide that terrorism has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000.
Mr. Dalyell: I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question that applies to the whole of part 7. What estimate has been made of the extra costs of undertaking those types of security arrangementwhich I do not doubt may well be necessary? Clause 59, for example, places a duty on the occupiers of premises to notify the Secretary of State before keeping or using any dangerous substance there. Occupiers of premises holding those substances when the Bill is enacted must notify the Secretary of State within one month. Similarly, occupiers of premises holding substances that are subsequently added to the schedule will have one month in which to notify the Secretary of State of their holdings once any such modification comes into effect.
I should have thought that that will involve a good deal of work for people. I am not saying that the work is unnecessary, but what estimate has been made of the extra cost of all that notification for those who run laboratories? Many of them are at their wits' end in trying to cope with their current financial situation.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): Can the Minister say who will check that what is being done is being done properly? Will she consider that those who at the moment are looking at safety in terms of pathogens getting out into the atmosphere might also investigate this matter? There is a possibility of enormously increased
Beverley Hughes: Members may have seen the regulatory impact assessment. I cannot remember the detail in relation to the cost of this part of the Bill, but an estimate has been made, as has been done rigorously for all parts of the Bill. In preparing the Bill, the levels of security at many laboratories were investigated thoroughly by the Home Office and the police. The overall benefit in increased security very much outweighs the cost.
As a result of our inquiries at laboratories, we are convincedas are many laboratory owners, knowing what has happened in the United States and what could happen elsewherethat these measures are very much needed. We have the co-operation of laboratory owners and managers and we expect the costs to be limited and reasonable. I said that our survey suggested that security at some laboratories was seriously lacking. About half those that we have seen so far require security measures to be improved. The measure will not affect every single laboratory.
If hon. Members would like me to write to them to give further details, I shall do so. However, I hope that they accept my assurance, on the basis of the work that we have done, that the measures are needed. We want to put in place a manageable, workable regime that will greatly improve the security of dangerous substances in laboratories.
Mr. Dalyell: I am not in any way trying to catch out the Minister, but some of us would like to be written to about this matter. Which laboratories have been talked to? Clause 61 would allow the police to request information about persons who have access to dangerous substances or to the premises in which they are kept or used. It would also place a duty on occupiers to ensure that other persons do not have access to the premises or substances. That is an onerous requirement in practice.
Perhaps the best thing would be for my hon. Friend the Minister to write a letter, or use the facilities of the other place, to explain to whom the Government have talked and whether those to whom they have talked are satisfied.
Mr. Gummer: I want to emphasise that many of these matters are technical. The phrase used is that a constable will ask for the information concerned. Obviously, that is not what will really happen, but I would like to know whether the technical people who already visit such establishments for safety reasons could be used successfully to avoid the extra weight of more visits when visits could be combined. They are the right people for the job, not constables.
Beverley Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that valid point. I will write to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in as much detail as I can about how the provision will work.
'(5) But something otherwise falling within subsection (4) is not to be regarded as a dangerous substance if
(a) it satisfies prescribed conditions; or
(b) it is kept or used in prescribed circumstances.'
Beverley Hughes: Amendment No. 31 will allow the list of dangerous substances in schedule 5 to be modified by secondary legislation, so that any example of a given substance would not be controlled if it met prescribed conditions. By that, I mean, first, that there are some substances which, of themselves, would be dangerous, but in certain placespharmacies, for instancewould be in such tiny amounts that they could not be used by terrorists, and secondly, circumstances where the actual substance or toxin was part of another product from which it could not be extracted. Clearly, in those circumstances, we would not want to apply the measures to laboratories or pharmacies, so substances in the prescribed conditions can be excluded by order.
Amendment No. 34 is consequential upon amendment No. 31, and ensures that regulations made under the new power are subject to negative resolution procedure. Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 are technical and concern the list of dangerous substances in schedule 5.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): With regard to amendment No. 43, I presume that there has been a change of taxonomy about which people are unaware in terms of parrot fever, which always has been chlamydia psittaci. Every single microbiologist to whom I have spoken over the last few weeks has always referred to it as that and intends to continue to refer to it as a chlamydia species. Presumably its name has changed.
Mr. Heath: The Minister agrees. Is it therefore sensible to have these organisms, pathogens and toxins described in such specific terms in schedule 5, given that they will then have to be amended by order whenever there is either a change of taxonomy or, more likelythis is a real problem with having a prescriptive list of this kindwhen there are pathogens that are not within the list but which represent precisely the same dangers? Does the Minister believe that the definition of "pathogen" or "toxin" under clause 58one that is
If there were to be a subsequent schedule to describe those viruses and bacteria that are contained, could those be described more properly in class terms, rather than as specific organisms? For instance, a number of viruses described in the list are associated with various haemorrhagic diseases. However, new haemorrhagic diseases are being identified all the time, especially in Africa. It would be folly to have one organism specifically listed in the schedule, while another that is not listed could not be added to the list without the bothersome bureaucracy of an Order in Council and secondary legislation. Is it possible to construct a schedule in more