| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nick Harvey (North Devon): I too welcome the fact that the Government have decided to introduce a new clause and put the report on a statutory footing. It is entirely right that the requirement should be written on the face of the Bill. The Minister should not take offence that anyone might cast doubt on the assurances that he gave last time, because they simply do not have the same standing as words in an Act.
Tomorrow morning I shall give written evidence to a current judicial review which proves that assurances given by Ministers two years ago have been broken--in that case by a quango. The Government's change of mind reassures us that the same thing will not happen in relation to the Bill.
Although I welcome that fact, I echo the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) in saying that it would be helpful to see more specific details of what will appear in the report. I hope that there will be further opportunities to debate the matter during the passage of the Bill.
Mr. Dalyell:
As I made a so-called parliamentary song and dance a fortnight ago about the need for statutory implementation, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge what has happened now. None the less, I echo what the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) said about Ministers' assurances. Assurances are frequently given in good faith but broken long after the ministerial incumbent has either been promoted or has left the House altogether, so the Minister need not be offended.
Mr. Oppenheim:
Having been a Member of Parliament for 13 years, I find it difficult to take offence. I must tell the hon. Member for East Kilbride that we took the decision some time ago that there should be an annual report, and that we also decided to write that on the face of the Bill some time before we heard about the letter from their Lordships--although obviously we listen carefully to their views, because they are all distinguished chemists.
I see no difficulty in including some of the information suggested in the new clause, and certainly would expect much of it to appear in the report.
However, the hon. Gentleman asked me which items I would specifically exclude, so I must mention subsection 2(b), which asks that aggregate quantities of individual declared chemicals should be incorporated into the report. That could compromise commercially sensitive information where only a few companies, or sometimes only one company, produces a chemical. Certainly it would be in breach of the convention.
The whole spirit of the convention relies on our obtaining the co-operation of chemical and pharmaceutical producers, as well as of researchers and academics. I genuinely believe that if producers felt that we were going outside the convention and were likely to breach commercial confidentiality, it could compromise the proper working of the convention.
Another area that causes concern is subsection 2(j), which would require unscheduled chemicals with the potential to be used in chemical weapons to be identified in the report. There is a danger that that could help proliferators by alerting them to the fact that there was something to look for. It could also lead to confusion. The point of the convention is that there is a schedule of chemicals, which can be added to. If we unilaterally added a whole lot more chemicals without their going through the convention procedure, it could lead to confusion and difficulties. Any information about chemicals with the potential for chemical weapons applications, especially information on novel compounds, should be carefully controlled.
I would be concerned about the idea that those be included in an annual report. I accept the intention behind the new clause, and we intend to make the report as informative as is consistent with protecting commercial confidentiality and national security.
As for the push behind our concession, or new clause, and the Government's present desire to make the requirement for an annual report statutory, the point of debates such as Second Reading, of the consultations and of the representations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, is that we are all aiming at the same end; we are all trying to make the convention work. It is most important, not only for us in Britain but for the future of the globe, that we succeed. We were prepared to listen to what hon. Members said, and we have responded in a spirit of co-operation, to ensure that the convention will work as well as possible. I hope that if our positions were reversed, the hon. Member for East Kilbride would do the same.
Mr. Ingram:
"If" is a big word; we prefer to use the word "when". I entirely take the Minister's point, and I appreciate his explanation of the list of items in new clause 2 that could be included in the annual report. I listened to what he said, and the details can be considered elsewhere, when the Bill goes to another place. The Government will then be able to take on board the points that we have made--hence our reason for raising the question in the first place.
There are 12 items listed in new clause 2 and the Minister ruled out only two of them, so we are making considerable progress. I hope that the other 10 items
will be included either in the form in which they are laid down in new clause 2 or in some variation of it. That would prove helpful in producing the annual reports. It would assist all those who want to ensure that the convention is being properly monitored and implemented by Britain. I recognise the spirit in which the Minister has responded.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Cohen:
I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 22, line 21, after second 'order', insert 'solely'.
This is the last of my amendments and I shall not take up much time with it.
Clause 35 deals with the power to amend the legislation when it is passed. Any major change of principle to the convention that would need a change in the Act must be dealt with by some form of primary legislation, such as a new Act or a statutory instrument under the affirmative resolution procedure, as we discussed in earlier debates.
There is also the question of amendments to the schedule that lists chemicals. It may well be that that list has to be amended in a hurry, and rightly so. A new chemical could come to notice which could be used as a chemical weaponry agent. Such a chemical would have to be added to the list as quickly as possible and a negative resolution statutory instrument seems appropriate, solely in that instance. My amendment would give the power to add a new chemical to the list quickly while changes of principle should be enacted after more thorough consideration by the House of Commons.
Mr. Oppenheim:
I accept the intention behind the amendment. The power to make amendments to the schedule should not be used to make amendments to other parts of the legislation at the same time. That was certainly not our intention.
The hon. Gentleman has tabled so many amendments and made such a contribution to the Bill, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that it would be churlish of me not to accept his amendment. I am told by the parliamentary draftsman that this is only the second time in 25 years that an unamended Opposition amendment has been accepted. However, it was a close-run thing. The parliamentary draftsman suggested that we use the word
"only" instead of "solely" and table a Government amendment, but it would have been churlish to go down that route.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment. It is a small step for him and a large step for the Chemical Weapons Bill.
Mr. Cohen:
I thank the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
'The Secretary of State shall in each calendar year--
(a) prepare a report on the operation of this Act, and (b) lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.'.--[Mr. Oppenheim.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |