---

Mr. Wilshire: I understand why the hon. Gentleman calls on Iraq to sign up to the additional protocol, but does he have any reason to believe that, were it to do so, it would be any more likely to stick to it, given that it was a signatory to the safeguard agreement in the first place?

Mr. Colman: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that the safeguard agreement that Iraq signed did not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency the right to search, as the Bill does. The reason for the additional protocol is to deal with Iraq's duplicity. When it was developing nuclear weapons, it stated that it was not doing that.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Would the hon. Gentleman have confidence that, if Iraq signed the additional protocol, the system would work if any search by the international body required an affidavit from the equivalent of a justice of the peace in Baghdad? Some hon. Members seem to proposing that.

Mr. Colman: I agree. When some hon. Members intervened on my hon. Friend the Minister, I sometimes wondered whether they were speaking for Saddam Hussein. However, I am sure that they were not.

I draw the attention of the House to the excellent work of the current inquiry of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs into weapons of mass destruction. I shall mention two of the people who have given evidence to the inquiry and who have supported my work in the past year. Professor John Simpson of the Mountbatten centre for international studies pointed out in his evidence that many new states are acceding to the non-proliferation treaty, and that it has widened. There is now the treaty of Rarotonga, which covers the south Pacific, the treaty of Bangkok, which covers south-east Asia and the treaty of Pelindaba, which covers Africa. Those treaties cover nuclear weapons-free zones, and involve more than 100 states.

Until all states have ratified the additional protocol, we cannot move to a new system of integrated safeguards. That makes it imperative that we, as one of the nuclear powers, take the lead on the matter.

Rebecca Johnson, who is executive director of the Acronym institute, stated in her evidence:

So far, the rate of signature and ratification of the Additional Protocols has been abysmal. For Britain to have ratified before the 2000 NPT conference would be an important signal of its commitment to strengthening the safeguards regime and improving the IAEA powers for monitoring and inspecting nuclear capable states.

10 Apr 2000 : Column 52

It has already been said that approximately 48 countries have now signed, including the main nuclear powers: the United Kingdom, the United States, the People's Republic of China, France and, on 22 March this year, Russia. So far, only eight countries have ratified. It is a pity that Euratom has not moved forward on the matter.

Earlier, the Minister and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) mentioned the anxieties of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): The right hon. Member.

Mr. Colman: I apologise. The right hon. Gentleman expressed anxiety that the Bill might contravene the European convention on human rights. That matter was fully discussed in another place and on Third Reading. Those debates are worth reading. The matter can be taken further in Committee.

I am worried that a more lenient regime might be established in this country, whereby warrants would have to be issued before inspection could take place. Such a regime would be used as a coach and horses, and would ensure that rogue states such as Iraq would continue to be able to hide the evidence. It would nullify the need and effectiveness of the additional protocol.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman's point is one of the fundamental problems that worries my hon. Friends and me. The other place states that the Bill will not contravene the European convention on human rights. Nevertheless, the courts could decide that the Bill constituted an infringement. If that happened, we could be in difficulties.

Mr. Colman: We could have experienced the same problem with our land mines and chemical weapons Acts. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should not enter into any international treaty obligations. It is important to lead the way and not to have a less stringent inspection regime in this country for land mines, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons than elsewhere.

Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and I am grateful to him for promoting me, but I am a humble hon. Member. We obviously do not want difficulties. We want things to go smoothly and sweetly and we must have as much information as possible to ensure that the proposal will not be challenged in the courts. I say that the IAEA must be able to take up those powers without infringement; he says, "It's going to be all right and we have them for the land mines and chemical treaties"--but that does not definitively answer what could be a difficult problem.

Mr. Colman: I am suggesting not that the proposal is the definitive answer, but that the matter has been examined again and again by the House in relation to similar treaty obligations. I am sure that it will be fully explored again in Committee. We must not give a signal, particularly ahead of the review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty on 26 April, that we are against an inspection regime in this country that we would wish on other countries.

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who recently set up the all-party group on global security and

10 Apr 2000 : Column 53

non-proliferation. I was pleased that not only Michael Douglas, but prominent Ministers and shadow Ministers from both sides of the House attended a recent meeting, because dealing with weapons of mass destruction has been too far down the House's agenda for far too long.

I have an important final point to make. In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development brought together representatives of developing countries, many of whom were benefiting or were to benefit from the debt relief provisions for which Jubilee 2000 has fought for a long time. The meeting examined their armaments budgets and considered whether they wanted to think again about the amount that they were spending. That is a legitimate way forward. The money forgone for debt relief will be diverted to poverty alleviation and we must consider whether more can be done to persuade countries to move on armaments purchases as well.

As the non-proliferation treaty review approaches, we must consider the fact that expenditure on weapons of mass destruction is largely made by developed countries in the G8 and, as Jubilee 2000 comes to its triumphant conclusion, whether we should establish a Jubilee 2002. We must bring to the top of the agenda the aim of all parties throughout the world moving forward on multilateral disarmament by dealing with weapons of mass destruction. I want the United Kingdom to take the lead and the Bill is a small step in that direction. I commend it to the House.

5.33 pm

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said, no more important matter could be brought before the House than attempts to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, especially, of nuclear weapons. I endorse his comments about the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). I am pleased to see him in the Chamber as he has done a great deal of work not only through the all-party group, but by initiating a recent Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is surely the most important international issue facing the countries of the world and, briefly, I want to add the support of Liberal Democrat Members to the Government's efforts. Many Conservative Members want to speak and I shall not detain the House for long, but I share some of their concerns about the Bill starting life as a private Member's Bill. It should have been a Government Bill from the beginning as it clearly represents a matter of great importance.

Proliferation has been accelerated and exaggerated since the end of the cold war. Indeed, I am off to Russia tomorrow for talks with people from the Ministry of Defence about their problems. It seems clear to us that this country has a duty to impose on itself the most stringent, the most rigorous and the most transparent regime of all to ensure that we can safeguard and monitor our nuclear industry.

I believe that we have an almost unique role to play in leading the calls for multinational disarmament. This country is a leading member of the European Union, a permanent member of the Security Council and a member of the Commonwealth. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is not in his place, but I would say to

10 Apr 2000 : Column 54

him that this country should take a lead by fulfilling our obligations because we are a key member of all those international bodies. We should do so for that reason alone.

This country has a unique position given our special relationship with the United States and our long history of developing and deploying nuclear weapons in the field. It is important that we should take the lead, and I am glad that the Government are now doing so, albeit late in the day. I definitely welcome that.

Reference has been made to the debate in the House of Lords. I commend the words of my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He made an excellent contribution and questioned Ministers in the other place on a number of points.

I want to ask the Minister four specific questions that I hope he will answer in his winding-up speech. Given what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said, will the Minister tell us why the Bill is being applied to the colonies? Does he include Gibraltar in the list? If the Bill is to be extended to the Channel islands, will he ensure that arms brokers and arms companies that place information on the internet from the colonies are also to be subject to this legislation?

What about the role of justices of the peace? It seems to us that the Bill places an important burden on them. Will they be given additional technical support and information so that they can make a proper judgment on whether to grant permission for searches to take place?

Reference has also been made to the position of the United States. Given our special relationship and the concern of hon. Members and many people in the country about the failure of the United States to ratify this and other treaties, and the suggestion that the United States will seek British participation in its national missile defence programme, will the Minister ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence raises the issue of US non-ratification with his American counterparts in any discussions he may have on the NMD programme?

What remedy does the Minister intend British citizens who are searched and have nothing on them should have? Should they have a remedy against the International Atomic Energy Agency, or against the police officers who support a search that reveals nothing?

---