Nanny state seeks new manacles

LONDON — The proposed Export Control Bill could severely restrict academic life in the UK, giving the government powers to veto publication of research, place controls on some university teaching and demand licences for overseas graduate students. So say a wide range of academics, members of the House of Lords and various pressure groups lobbying for tighter controls on arms sales. But the minister charged with the task of seeing the bill through the House of Lords, Lord Sainsbury, claimed during the committee stage on Monday 4 March that the fears are without foundation.In theory, this Bill should pose few problems for academia. It seeks simply to update and replace the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, a 'temporary' Act that was hurriedly drawn-up to regulate the sale of weapons in the emergency situation of World War II. In 1990 it was amended so that it could stay in force even though the 1939 emergency had long-since passed. The 1996 Scott Inquiry into the export of defence equipment identified limitations in the existing legislation and in 1998 the then Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers, started work redrafting it. Although the events of September 11 gave new impetus to the bill, most of the thinking occurred before that tragic date.One of the most vocal critics has been Peter Cotgreave, Director of the pressure group Save British Science. "Clearly there is a need for this legislation and the intention is to allow more parliamentary scrutiny of work that controls the arms trade," commented Cotgreave. The problem, he says, is that although the Bill aims to protect the free world by preventing weapons of mass destruction from passing into the hands of despotic regimes, it could endanger some of the very freedoms it seeks to preserve.As it stands the Bill will give future governments the power to restrict people's ability to communicate work about new technology, and the Bill's definition of technology is completely open-ended. Section 2 subsection 6 defines technology as "information (including information comprised in software) that is capable of use in connection with – (a) the development, production or use of any goods or software; (b) the development of, or the carrying out of, an industrial or commercial activity or an activity of any other kind whatsoever." This could severely restrict an academic's ability to discuss, publish or teach."I don't believe that the current government, or any government that we are likely to have really wants to ban people from doing and publishing ordinary research, but I do think that if they are not going to try and do that they shouldn't take the power to do that," said Cotgreave. "Or if they feel that they can only take the powers they do need by circumscribing sufficiently widely, they should say explicitly in the Bill that this was not intended to stifle the proper dissemination of information between academics who are just getting on with their jobs."The need to create a safer world but protect the right to research has brought together an odd coalition. The UK Working Group on Arms, which consists of Amnesty International UK, BASIC, Christian Aid, International Alert, Oxfam GB and Saferworld has found itself in discussion with the academics. "The Working Group supports Universities UK in their call to ensure the Export Control Bill doesn't unnecessarily affect academic freedom," said a spokesperson for Amnesty. Their problem is that they want to provide freedom for academic research and exchange of information without simultaneously creating loopholes that would allow information to get into the wrong hands.Speaking in the House of Lords, Baroness Miller of Hendon proposed a series of amendments to the Bill, each aimed at protecting UK academics' freedom to discuss and publish their work. She said that while it is relatively simple to control the movement of goods, restricting the flow of ideas is more problematic. In addition she called the Bill "draconian" and said that its "totalitarian restrictions" would make it very difficult to teach foreign students, as they would carry the ideas home with them when they returned after their education. "Clearly the Government, despite their protestations to the contrary, are taking powers to license foreign students and regulate what they may be taught," claimed Miller.She also said that Lord Sainsbury had given assurances to some academics that the Bill would not be used to restrict the transfer of information already in the public domain. But this could still restrict graduate teaching, which often involves discussion of ideas that are not already published and may therefore not be considered as being in the public domain. Furthermore, the publication of research is by definition the dissemination of work that was not previously in the public domain.The Bill intends to establish a framework of primary legislation and then the actual working of this law would be fine-tuned in secondary legislation. Lord Sainsbury wants to see the primary legislation as uncluttered with restrictions to government power as possible, in the hope that secondary legislation will create required safeguards.Speaking partly in her role as Chief Executive of Universities UK, Baroness Warwick spoke from the labour benches saying that she felt this was not good enough. "We mustn't throw out the bright baby of academic endeavour with the mucky bath water of an unstable world," she said, convinced that the only way to ensure academic freedom was to enshrine it in the primary legislation. It was a sentiment forcefully echoed by seven other members of the House of Lords.During their speeches Lord Sainsbury smiled, nodded and occasionally shook his head in mock derision. He then stood and apparently presented the speech that he had written before entering the debating chamber. His basic line was that the worried academics were simply incapable of making sense of this straightforward piece of legislation. In his opinion the legislation contained few flaws and was in little, if any, need of revision.Commenting on the proceedings, Nick Bohm, a legal advisor for Universities UK, said that although Baroness Miller had withdrawn her current amendments, the government could anticipate a rough ride if it left the legislation as it stands. Placing the amendment had been a procedural ploy to raise the issue. It was not done with the expectation that it would be instantly accepted by the government. It had, however, enabled debate and revealed that support for changes that would protect academic freedom came from all political corners of the House.Bohm thought that one of two things would now happen. One possibility is that the government will present amendments of its own in an effort to appease some of its own members and ward off confrontation. Alternatively, it might try to push ahead without offering any changes, in which case he felt that it could face a major battle when the Bill reaches the Report Stage later this month — the next stage of the struggle to balance freedom and security.

Nanny state seeks new manacles

UK researchers fear that legislation debated on Monday in the House of Lords could infringe academic freedom.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of