House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Apr 1995

Column 629

Just as we are on fixed-term contracts, and increasingly everyone else in the country is on fixed-term contracts, so the Church should increasingly have fixed-term contracts. That may be true for bishops, archbishops and everyone else. I do not see why the great advantage of the freedom, which of course comes from the independence-- which we have given to judges--should mean that people are allowed to continue to have that freedom when they are not doing the job. We are becoming a society in which people, including the judiciary, will be expected to show that they are doing the job properly and where there is a review system. If people do not do the job properly, they should be asked to move so that somebody else can come in--that is true of judges, bishops and the rest. The past system within the Church has been a hindrance. Team and group ministries are a good idea. I welcome the Measure. We cannot say that the Church has rushed it through; it has been deliberating on the proposal for 13 years. It will have been 13 years from conception to delivery. The Measure has not been passed undebated--the Church has changed its mind on the issue of freehold. There was a marginal vote of seven to six in favour of one view on the freehold. As the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, there was a change of attitude when the Measure returned to the Synod, and the majority voted to remove the freehold.

The debate has been held; the Church has decided that it is better in the context of team and group ministries not to have one person with a freehold and others without. The structure of the Church should give a sense of commonality. I hope that people welcome the Measure, which will make the Church more flexible in times when human resources may be more difficult to find. It may not be possible to have as many ordained ministers as we have had to minister across the length and breadth of the country. It is better that cover be provided by a range of people. I hope that the Measure gains the support of the House, whether or not another Measure is later introduced to deal with the more thorny issue of freehold which, if it came, I would also support.

10.46 pm

Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South): I did not arrive in the Chamber this evening with the slightest intention of speaking. It is a tribute to those who have spoken that I should have felt inspired and provoked to do so.

I start on a personal note. I lived for 18 years in a 1720 former vicarage that now looks--or certainly did when I resided in it--more like a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station than any other 1720 vicarage in the country. It was immediately adjacent to the church and, in the tradition of the Church of England, I was always the last person into church on any Sunday.

I have moved into a hamlet where there is no church--such church as we had was turned into a private house about 40 years ago. I suspect that it was probably originally of Victorian design. The holy spirit has placed the hamlet on the border between two team ministries--one of five parishes and one of eight parishes. We are situated in a diocese that the Ecclesiastical Committee's report says is one of the three leading dioceses in the country for team ministries. It will not have escaped the

Column 630

attention of anyone in the House that being on the border of 13 churches that form two team ministries allows one the option of attending each one of them once a quarter and each of them four times a year.

The variety of service--from the Eucharist, which was primarily said in my former parish, to matins and evensong--is enormous and the number of rituals, rites and prayer books from which the services are taken is large. As a result, there is the most marvellous opportunity for choice and, on the strength of that and the manner in which the two team ministries are conducted, I support the proposal introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). However, I worshipped in the past in a parish where the parson was enormously preoccupied with the parson's freehold. He arrived in the parish at the age of 50 to succeed a man who had been rector for 43 years. He announced in his first week in the parish that he proposed to surpass him; he did so and remained the rector for 44 years, reinforced by the parson's freehold. During that time, he drove my father from the front pew of the parish church with his constant attacks on Parliament for what it was seeking to do to the parson's freehold. He also drove away the church warden, a most distinguished accountant who had been in the habit of regularly giving the parish a large cheque. The parson said that he did not believe in having parish audits, to which the most distinguished accountant replied that an audit did not suggest that there was anything wrong; it was simply the right thing to do. The accountant said that if there was not to be an audit in the parish he would leave as well. He subsequently left, and the last five quinquennial inspections by the diocesan architect also passed by. By the time the parson died, the fabric of the church was in a state of disorder and the congregation was reduced to seven.

Despite that sorry tale, I wholly support the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in seeking to defend the parson's freehold as one of the remarkable institutions of the Church to which we both belong. I certainly hope that the Measure will not be prayed in aid in the future in order to make a separate point.

The marvellous curate's egg that the Church of England is, and to which all of us subscribe, is such that I disagree--despite his advocacy of the hon. Member for Birkenhead--with what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said about bishops and archdeacons. I think that we can perhaps carry on that dispute better outside the House and I may misunderstand the roles that are fulfilled by both. I was brought up by a house master, one of whose Oxford contemporaries was sent to be the archdeacon in Norfolk. My house master sent him a postcard to say that his principal duty would be to detect concubinage in various parishes in the diocese. He received a postcard in return to say that that was of course ridiculous. A fortnight later, he received another postcard which said, "By God, you were right."

I think that my hon. Friend takes a rather distant view of the role and function of bishops. I wholly agree--although from a slightly different quarter--with what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the loneliness of individual parishes. I believe that it is a major responsibility of the bishop to reinforce the faith of those who find themselves preaching in that way.

Column 631

The debate has been thoroughly worth while and I suspect that, as the dodo said, it will end up as a case of all have won and all shall have prizes. We shall not come to blows over the Measure. However, I suspect that, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, we will have to take a rather more solid stand on another occasion.

I close with a sermon preached in a rural church at evensong to my father and six rustic members of the congregation by a vicar who began with the words:

"Those of you who have been to Thermopylae will remember . . . " I suspect that some of us at some stage in the future will find ourselves at Thermopylae with something serious to do.

10.53 pm

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): Like my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), I did not intend to speak in the debate and I will not detain the House long. Sadly, I cannot match my right hon. Friend's anecdotes about parsons who have been in place for 43 or 44 years. However, as someone who has the best interests of the Church of England at heart and who has a great affection for it I express unease about the Measure. I suspect that this country desperately needs decent moral and spiritual leadership, which, sadly, seems to be lacking from all the Churches--but particularly from the Church of England. The state of the Church is not as one would wish--indeed, some might say that it is parlous.

I am uneasy because one wishes to see more spiritual leadership and one wonders whether team ministries will lead to that. A team ministry has just been introduced in my constituency. Although it seems to work reasonably well, the suspicion of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that one may turn up at a Church with no idea who may take the service is well founded. The loss of the relationship between the congregation and the minister is something that happens in team ministries.

I know that there is a shortage of good ordinands and of clergy, but we should not pursue the path that we are taking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said, modern management techniques and structures do not necessarily lend themselves to a Church that is thousands of years old- -hundreds if one takes the Church of England.

I rose only to express my unease because although I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), I respect the views expressed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, who I suspect are more in touch with the congregations of the Church of England than the General Synod seems to be when it speaks.

10.55 pm

Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the debate. I start by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)--I am tempted to call him my hon. Friend--on having accepted the substantial office of shadow second Church Estates Commissioner.

Mr. Frank Field: When I was sacked by Neil Kinnock for voting against Government policy on GCHQ, I asked

Column 632

whether he wanted me to resign my other post as well. He said, "What other post?" When I mentioned shadow Church Estates Commissioner he said, "No--that is a divine appointment." Whether or not it is divine, I also had the Whip removed from me at some stage and thought of yet another deselection, but I am now back with the Whip and glad to be welcomed.

Mr. Alison: I am delighted to learn that Neil Kinnock makes an occasional reference to divinity. I thought that was a dimension of his life that he kept under wraps. He was certainly divinely inspired in appointing the hon. Member for Birkenhead. My only fear is that his status is such that if shadow becomes substance, he is likely to become rather more exalted in any future Administration than second Church Estates Commissioner. He would not then be able to employ his enormously powerful debating skills defending the freehold, which he suggested might be under threat in future.

In the light of the hon. Gentleman's Cassandra-like foreshadowing of the shape of things to come, it is worth remembering that it is probable and possible that the General Synod will be less flexible and less willing to move in the direction of further damage to the freehold notion than might appear from the Measure. The General Synod consists of the House of Clergy as well as the House of Laity, alongside the bishops. I suspect that on the general principle of the freehold, there will be a substantial consensus among clergy and laity to hold on to a lot of the best aspects of the freehold. Tonight's Measure affects only 10 per cent. of the stipendiary clergy of the Church of England. Team ministry provisions in a particular locality can be rescinded. There is no ratchet effect, because in certain circumstances a team ministry may be wound up in a particular location, with a return to the freehold in an appointment to that benefice. It does not necessarily follow that, for the clergy and laity, the General Synod will be quite so sympathetic as the vote for the Measure seems to imply in relation to the freehold. I hope that reinforces the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) not to vote against the Measure.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)--whom I may also call my hon. Friend--brought a whiff of the pavements of Bermondsey and Southwark to us this evening. It is a parish where, alas, the worst features of the freehold manifest themselves. It was enormously to the enhancement of our short debate tonight that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) contributed to it. He has now accepted a distinguished official post in the Church of England in respect of our heritage. We are extremely fortunate that he has moved from a Cabinet position of responsibility for heritage matters into what is--in many ways--a much more enduring and even more fundamental responsibility. It will probably be remembered long after many of the duties that he had to perform as Heritage Secretary have been forgotten. It is enormously to our advantage that he has been willing to take on these new responsibilities. He delivered a perfectly balanced exposition of the merits both of the freehold system and of the team ministry Measure before us this evening. Unlike the curate's egg, which was good only in parts, his speech was the perfect balance of everything that is good and wholesome.

Column 633

It was refreshing to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He referred to the need for the Church of England, whether through the parson's freehold or through a team ministry, to get out and exhort and pursue what it alone can: the promotion of fundamental ethical and moral values, without equivocation, on a firm rock-like foundation. I am glad that he made that point. What we have been discussing this evening in a sense represents only the shell of the process; the kernel, however, to which my hon. Friend referred, is of the essence. We all hope and pray that this Measure will enhance and extend the possibility of successful and fruitful ministry in the Church of England.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Team and Group Ministries Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Column 634

Chemical Weapons

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Chapman.]

11.1 pm

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): I wish to raise the question of the chemical weapons convention and the threat from chemical weapons.

In January 1993, after 20 years of negotiations, the chemical weapons convention was opened for signature. It bans the development, production, possession, transfer and use of chemical weapons. In last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates", the Ministry of Defence described the chemical weapons convention as

"a major step forward in enhancing world stability".

To date, 159 countries have signed the chemical weapons convention. That shows the depth of international commitment to outlawing such weapons. Thirty-one states had not signed as of the end of March, including Egypt, Angola, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Taiwan. They must be persuaded to do so.

This treaty is clearly in our national security interests, because it reduces the risk of British troops being subjected to chemical attack when deployed overseas, whether on national, NATO or United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Recently, the world has seen the awful horrors of terrorist chemical attack on civilians in Japan. That shows the relative ease of making chemical weapons, as well as the problems of preventing their use, but it also demonstrates the need to impose much tighter controls on the trade in chemicals and the purposes to which they are put. That is why Japan is now rushing to pass the legislation necessary for it to ratify the convention.

The chemical weapons convention cannot enter into force until 180 days after the 65th state has deposited its instrument of ratification with the United Nations Secretary-General. The earliest date on which the convention could have entered into force was 13 January this year. It has yet to do so, because, to date, only 27 states have ratified the convention. They include Australia, France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland-- all of which are industrialised countries, many of them with significant chemical industries and facilities, which will be greatly affected by the convention.

Surprisingly, given our own proud record in successful negotiation of the chemical weapons convention, and our signature of the treaty at the earliest opportunity in January 1993, this country and Her Majesty's Government have not yet ratified the convention. Why not? Before Britain can ratify the convention, legislation needs to be introduced which, among other things, must provide rights of access for international inspectors to commercial chemical facilities, for verification of compliance. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for introducing the necessary legislation.

In a written answer last year, the President of the Board of Trade said:

"Primary legislation is required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the chemical weapons convention."--[ Official Report , 8 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 297. ]

Column 635

At the Group of Seven economic summit in London, in 1991, the United Kingdom and its G7 partners reaffirmed their

"intention to become original state parties to the convention"-- that is, to be among the first 65 signatories to ratify. In the 1993 Gracious Speech, the Government said that they would "work for the effective implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction".--[ Official Report , 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 7.] Yet, more recently, when asked if it remains Government policy for Britain to become an original state party of the convention, Ministers have avoided restating their earlier commitment. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on 26 September 1994, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"We certainly hope to be among the first 65 states to ratify the convention."

It does not appear to be the Ministry of Defence that is delaying United Kingdom ratification, because, in last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates," the MOD actually

"expected"--

the CWC--

"to enter into force at the earliest possible date in 1995". In a written parliamentary answer earlier this year, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:

"Once fully implemented it will make a significant contribution to international security."--[ Official Report , 27 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 437. ]

At the end of 1993, the Prime Minister confidently asserted: "The United Kingdom played an active role in the negotiations leading to the opening for signature of the chemical weapons convention . . . The United Kingdom signed the Convention in January 1993 and we intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention at the earliest possible opportunity."--[ Official Report , 16 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 795. ]

That was 16 months ago.

Are Her Majesty's Government seriously telling the House that there has not been an opportunity to introduce that legislation since then? Is the Foreign Office responsible? Is it the Foreign Office that is resisting ratification? No. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is rightly proud of its performance in this field. Its memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in February this year stated: "The chemical weapons convention . . . after 20 years of negotiation, was a landmark for proliferation and arms control in the post-Cold war era. The UK played a major part in its negotiation, and it intends to ratify the CWC as soon as the necessary implementing legislation is in place".

Is it, perhaps, because the legislation is likely to be met with resistance from the civil chemical industry? Again, no; the Chemical Industries Association has been clear in its support for the chemical weapons convention. It wants to ensure that the United Kingdom is an original state party, able to play a full part in shaping the control regime and able to ensure that it will not suffer the trade discrimination that might arise if the UK remained a non-party. Perhaps there is some other explanation. Might there be some detrimental consequences for Britain's chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down? Again, no; on the contrary, it will continue to conduct

Column 636

research into protective measures against chemical attack and will also play a central part in the new arms control regime.

Is it, perhaps, because legislation is likely to prove controversial? Again, no; presumably, on this issue, the Government could expect to carry all their Back Benchers with them, and both Labour Front Benchers and the Liberal Democrats have pledged their broad support for the legislation. During business questions just before Easter, the shadow Leader of the House offered the Labour party's full co-operation in getting legislation through the House. Is it because the legislation is likely to prove complex and to require a great deal of preparation? I do not think so--not according to the paper presented by the Government to a regional chemical weapons convention seminar in Brno in the Czech Republic in June last year. It stated:

"Our legislation will be quite short and we think its preparation will be quite straightforward."

The President of the Board of Trade has said that the necessary Bill will be introduced

"as soon as parliamentary time and other Government legislative priorities permit."--[ Official Report , 8 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 297. ]

The excuse of finding it difficult to fit a Bill into the legislative programme may be a fair one over a short period of a few months, but surely not over a two-year period. That leaves me asking whether it is all about a sense of priorities. In that case, perhaps we should look at the President's words when he was Secretary of State for Defence. On 8 May 1985 he told the Defence Select Committee:

"I can only tell you the priorities we . . . in this Government have--to secure agreement to the limitation and, hopefully, the abolition of chemical weapons."

Yet, 10 years later, when the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to carry that legislation through to fruition, he fails to act. Why? Could it be something to do with his aversion to imposing regulations and controls on industry? Surely, in this area that would be misguided and contrary to the security interests of our country.

I would have thought that people in general might think that, following the Post Office fiasco, the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the opportunity to introduce a simple piece of legislation that could be relied on to receive widespread support from his Back Benchers and, perhaps, unanimous support from both sides of the House.

At least the right hon. Gentleman's Department has begun work in preparation for the entry into force of the convention and the UK is playing a full part in the preparatory commission in The Hague that has been charged with the task of developing detailed administrative and verification procedures in preparation for the entry into force of the convention.

As I understand it, the British embassy in The Hague has two people at first secretary level playing major roles in the work of the commission and six British citizens have posts in the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons, which is the provisional technical secretariat. One of them is its head. After it comes into effect, that organisation will monitor the implementation of the convention.

Column 637

However, as the Royal Society of Chemistry and others have pointed out, if the UK fails to be among the first 65 countries to ratify the convention, that will have serious detrimental consequences for personnel, for employment and for Britain's influence within the convention. In the words of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report entitled "UK Policy on Weapons Proliferation and Arms Control in the Post-Cold War Era",

"a failure to ratify amongst the first 65 member states would mean that few, if any, UK nationals would be employed as inspectors or in the Technical Secretariat, at any rate in the first instance, and might prejudice the UK's right to a seat on the Executive Council." The Committee said other things that were strongly critical of the Government. It said:

"there is a risk that the UK's diplomatic efforts to promote the Convention may be undermined by its own apparent reluctance to ratify . . . it is clear that a number of detailed points of importance to the UK chemical industry remain to be resolved in relation to the scope of the Convention and it is important that the UK interest is adequately reflected in discussion of these."

At the end of January this year, the Department of Trade and Industry issued its discussion document, and responses should have been returned by 31 March. No doubt, the results will be useful to the Department, but, after the UK signed the convention, why did two years elapse before the consultation document was issued? Surely, the Government conducted consultations before they agreed to sign the convention, and what were they doing between January 1993 and January 1995?

On 18 January this year, the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that legislation was not likely in the present Session of Parliament. That would mean that our Government would not intend to introduce the necessary Bill until at least November 1995, nearly three years after we signed the chemical weapons convention.

It looks fairly certain that that convention will not come into force until 1996, but by the end of this year, we are likely to be a lot closer to 65 countries having ratified. By delaying until the next Session of Parliament, the Government risk either not being an original state party or having to scramble to put the Bill through to spare them the embarrassment of being left behind. That is hardly a dignified position to have got Britain into--a leading proponent of the chemical weapons convention being one of the last to ratify. Why is the DTI prepared to risk tarnishing the country's admirable record in chemical arms control? The reasons still remain obscure. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office wants the treaty ratified as soon as possible. The Ministry of Defence wants it. DTI officials want it and they are preparing for it. The legislation is straightforward and could be passed quickly. The main Opposition parties support the Bill's principles. Even the Chemical Industries Association is quoted as saying that it believes that the

"UK chemical industry is overwhelmingly in favour of ratification. We are not the cause of delay--we need the convention to show that we are not [involved in making clandestine weapons]". Given all that, why has it been necessary to ask the Minister to come to explain his Department's reluctance to introduce required legislation? One might have expected the DTI to do that months ago and to trumpet

Column 638

the move as proof that our Government were committed to chemical weapons disarmament and to the tremendous achievement of securing the convention.

When it eventually comes before the House, the Bill will need to provide powers for an effective, transparent and properly accountable national authority to oversee the country's compliance with the treaty. It is important that a country such as Britain, which has an excellent record on chemical weapon disarmament and which is not likely to be suspected of building chemical weapons, nevertheless demonstrates that it is taking seriously the job of putting in place effective mechanisms to prove its compliance.

11.18 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on the way in which he has presented his case and, indeed, on securing the Adjournment debate in the first place as it gives me my first opportunity since I became a Minister to speak in the House on this subject. I am delighted to do so and can confirm that the Government fully endorse the convention and have every intention of ratifying it.

The hon. Gentleman made an extended point, so perhaps I can reverse the usual order of ministerial replies in order to avoid running out of time before I get to the key part. I disagree with the official who said to whatever conference it was that this might be only a simple procedure. There are complexities. The Bill covers a subject matter that is more complex than may be widely realised and we discovered some points during the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation period with industry earlier this year which, as the hon. Gentleman said, finished on 31 March. We are now reviewing the conclusions, and I shall deal with them in a moment.

It might help the House and the industry if I were to say that the intention is, at a fairly early date, to publish a draft of the Bill. That will enable those affected by it or those who take an interest in it to comment on the provisions before they are formally introduced. It is a wise precaution and certainly one that I advocate. I am entitled to say on behalf of the Government that that is our intention after consultations across Government Departments. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, although I am a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, other Departments take an interest in the matter, but we are all of one mind in wanting to try to make progress.

Work is going ahead to prepare the necessary legislation and, as I said, we intend to publish a draft of the Bill with a view to introducing it in the 1995-96 Session. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about this not being a matter of controversy between the parties. I welcome that as I can envisage the Bill having a speedy passage. I am sure that that would please him and the other hon. Members who take a considerable interest in the Government's achievement, with support from Opposition Members, in signing the convention in the first place in 1993.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): If we had to wait until the 1995-96 Session, how would the Minister respond to the Royal Society of Chemistry's third cause for concern in relation to parties

Column 639

"in certain industrial chemicals that are defined in the CWC under Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 as being dual-use compounds"

and the trade in them? Might not it create difficulties if we did not proceed immediately?

Mr. Taylor: It would not create difficulties until a period after the coming into force of the whole treaty. We are well aware of that and one of the things that came out of the consultation between January and the end of March was that we should listen to industry's worries. However, I am satisfied that that possibility will not arise thanks to the timetable that I have announced this evening. Indeed, any of the outstanding points touched on by the Select Committee about the way in which the treaty is defined and implemented in this country could be dealt with during consultation on the draft Bill rather than when it is debated in the House. That would then simplify the procedure in the House.

I welcome those parts of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report that refer to the chemical weapons convention. Clearly, I am not this evening going to reply formally to the report on behalf of the Government--that must await the normal channels--but I have read the sections that are relevant to this debate.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South gave the correct background to the convention and I do not wish to go over it again. In the time that remains I shall highlight some matters that may be of interest to anyone who may be listening at this early hour of the evening or who is a devotee of Hansard because I should like to provoke a much wider debate on the subject.

The chemicals involved fall into different categories. Clearly, schedule 1 contains the most toxic chemicals, including many of the agents themselves. These chemicals have few alternative applications. The UK must not possess on aggregate more than 1 tonne of schedule 1 chemicals and all holdings must be justifiable for research, medical, protective or pharmaceutical purposes. Schedule 2 contains chemicals that, although toxic, have some legitimate industrial uses. Schedule 3 contains chemicals that occur commonly in industry, but which can be used in the production of chemical weapons, such as phosgene which is also used in plastics.

The discrete organic chemicals category covers carbon-based chemicals which are widely used in industry. International discussions in the preparatory commission continue to tighten the definition, which is important for industry as a whole.

In our view, the chemical weapons convention provides an effective and powerful verification regime which we warmly welcome. Declarations are required periodically from companies and others using chemicals of concern. As the hon. Gentleman said, inspection will be undertaken by an international inspectorate based in The Hague, there being two sorts of inspection: a routine inspection which will check declarations of the scheduled chemicals, and challenge inspections which will be undertaken at 12 hours' notice at any site where there are grounds for suspecting that it is in breach of the convention. Challenge inspections can be requested by any state party.

Trade controls will be imposed progressively. Initially, trade in the most toxic chemicals--those in schedule 1--will be controlled. Schedule 2 chemicals will be controlled after three years. I hope that that background is of help.

Column 640

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the international body which will be set up--the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons--and which will be based in The Hague. The main function of its staff will be the inspections to which I have just referred. The preparatory commission working in The Hague on the detailed arrangements for implementation is a commission in which the British Government are playing an active part; we will continue to do so. My announcement tonight about timing underlines the fact that we are confident that we shall have a considerable influence in the discussions that are rolling forward.

The CWC enters into force six months after 65 countries have ratified it. As was mentioned, 27 countries have ratified it so far. The Russian Federation and the United States have not yet moved to ratification. Obviously, we are interested not only in their timetables, but in encouraging as many other countries as possible to move forward. We have been influential in trying to talk both to countries that have signed and are likely to move slowly towards ratification and to countries that have not yet signed the convention, but which might be encouraged so to do.

From my departmental point of view, I mention that the DTI will be the national authority which each state is required to set up as a focal point for the implementation of the convention. It is inevitable that the controls required by the convention will affect industry. The Government have kept in close touch with the representatives of the chemical industry during the negotiation of the convention and continue to work with industry to ensure that, in the compliance process, we keep the burdens on business to the minimum necessary. That is welcome.

We are preparing reporting forms and information for the industry, as far as this can be done on the basis of decisions taken in the preparatory commission. Industry has given us its views in the consultation period, which was designed to let all firms that were affected come forward with their views and to seek industry's views on points in relation to declaration procedures. We have found that industry particularly wants to avoid avoidable burdens and wants other burdens to be minimised. Strict measures are needed to preserve commercial confidentiality. Definitions must be precise and industry will need guidance during inspections. I am confident that as the DTI will be the national authority, the discreet and confidential nature of DTI civil servants will safeguard the interests of industry in relation to confidentiality.

In all the discussions that are going ahead, both in this country and through The Hague, the British Government are doing their job. I do not accept the strictures in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because I believe that the timetable that I have announced will satisfy it and does not in any way undermine our diplomatic efforts to promote the treaty. I am satisfied therefore that we shall continue to be influential and that our voice will be heard on unresolved industry matters. We are a participant in the discussions in The Hague. Indeed, we chair the expert group on industry issues in The Hague.

I do not believe that we shall fail to be part of the first 65 countries. Therefore, I believe that we shall have a seat on the executive council, although I am aware of and shall be watching the rate of progress in the next few months. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Ilford, South that I

Column 641

am aware of the consequences of late ratification, which is why, as a new Minister, I have endeavoured to make as speedy progress as possible. Therefore, I think that we shall be a founder state party to the convention.

In the last couple of minutes of the debate, may I mention one area of concern which has been raised with me in correspondence, although the hon. Member for Ilford, South did not raise it tonight? I have been asked whether the ratification of the convention, which is coming into force, will make terrorist attacks impossible. The obvious answer to that, I am sad to say, is no. There is no convention yet invented which can avoid or prevent terrorists from carrying out deeds such as those that we have recently seen in Japan. I must confirm that this convention by itself will not be sufficient to remove the threat of those terrorist activities. Clearly, in as much as certain highly toxic chemicals will be brought under control or destroyed, access to certain chemicals will be made more difficult. On the other hand, some chemicals can be manufactured--in small quantities but nevertheless creating a danger to the public.

Column 642

Ultimately, it is possible to continue to make certain agents, of which sarin is an example, from chemicals which, because of their wide commercial applications, fall outside the convention's controls. Defence against chemical terrorism depends on good intelligence, vigilance and public support, as does defence against other forms of terrorism. The police and other agencies have served us well, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be keen to see what we can learn from the experience of others and especially from recent events in Japan. There is contingency planning in existence for responding to a wide range of terrorist attacks, including chemical ones.

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply.

Mr. Dalyell rose --

Next Section

Home Page