| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. The position of the IAEA is analogous to that of Europol, which has rights in this country and has immunity. The answer given by a Minister with regard to Europol was that it would be the constabulary involved against whom any civil action would be taken by an individual or company affected. As this international body also has immunity, is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the same would apply in this instance?
Mr. Keetch: Yes, it is my understanding that the remedy would be directed against the police officer who supported any search. It is important to make that point, especially as reference has already been made to nations whose Governments have attempted to prevent international monitoring.
This country has a proud record of taking a lead on attempts by all countries to control the proliferation and establish verification of nuclear weapons systems. The Bill is an important part of that, and it is unfortunate that
Members from all parties in the House are not more inclined to listen to the debate. I hope that it will receive support. It will get the support of the Liberal Democrats, and I look forward to considering the Bill in Committee.5.39 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): One of the problems with this procedure is that it always has the taste of a fait accompli. On the face of it, the House of Commons is debating a substantial matter and an important Bill concerning some important international treaties and obligations. However, the puzzlement is that the explanatory notes say:
- It was agreed by the Council of Ministers on 8 June 1998 and approved by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 11 June. The Additional Protocol was signed in Vienna on 22 September 1998.
That raises the question: what is the real meaning of this parliamentary procedure? On the face of it, the answer is that we need a Bill to give effect to what the Minister said on our behalf; but is anyone seriously suggesting that if by some chance the Bill did not receive the assent of both Houses of Parliament, the Minister's signature would somehow be invalidated? What needs to be clarified--a Select Committee is considering it--is whether the Government feel that the parliamentary process that we are undertaking can have any real meaning, or whether we are expected to be some sort of rubber stamp. For instance, if we sought to amend the substance of the Bill giving effect to the protocol, would that in any way invalidate the Minister's signature, given in the Council of Ministers? That strikes me as a relevant question.
The first question, in an overall sense, is this: what is the status of our current proceedings? That is to say nothing of the Committee and Report stages, which will give the House an opportunity to examine in much more detail clauses that have already been touched on and to which I hope to return later.
Then there is the mystery of the private Member's Bill. I remember distinctly, because I was aware of its passage at the time, that the hon. Member concerned gave the impression that it was his Bill and his alone, and had nothing to do with the Government. I had my doubts at the time, and they have simply been confirmed by our proceedings.
It would appear--this is the evidence; I wait for a Minister to deny it--that the Government sought to smuggle their provisions through the parliamentary process using the vehicle of a private Member's Bill, and when that failed owing to the remarkable diligence of a certain right hon. Member, were forced to do what they should have done from the start, and give the provisions proper parliamentary time in the legislative timetable. That is what they should have done, if they thought that their proposals were sufficiently important. That, I think, explains the apparently inexplicable delay between the Government's signature in September 1998 and the Bill's being subjected to a proper parliamentary process in both Houses in 2000.
Mr. Maclean: It would be fair of my right hon. Friend to point out not just that the Government attempted to
smuggle the legislation through as a private Member's Bill, but that they attempted to do so by tacking it on to the end of the Order Paper on a Friday. In those circumstances, it would have had to be bounced through with no Second Reading and no Committee stage. It would have completed all its stages instantly--a process that Madam Speaker thoroughly deplores. I am sure that you do as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend would agree that, even at this early stage, enough questions have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), and in interventions, to suggest that the matter is not uncontroversial. Apparently, it is already highly controversial, and I hope to show that it involves several areas of controversy that will have to be resolved during the parliamentary process.
Mr. Bercow: It is bad enough that Ministers should browbeat a hapless Back Bencher into presenting a private Member's Bill that was not of his original choosing, but have they not compounded the error by failing at least adequately to brief the Member in question on why the Bill contained what it did contain, and did not contain what it did not contain?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have dealt sufficiently with the Bill's history; perhaps we could now deal with its content.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The protocol is at the heart of the matter. I want to spend some time on it, particularly its preamble, which mentions the awareness
- of the desire of the international community--
- to further enhance--
a split infinitive appears even in the preamble of an allegedly important document--
nuclear non-proliferation by strengthening the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of the Agency's safeguards system.
I invoke briefly a speech by a gentleman called Mr. Michael Douglas, who recently appeared in the Palace of Westminster at a meeting attended by many senior and well-meaning colleagues. He glories in the title of United Nations messenger on something or other. He was here to discuss the very matter that is the substance of the protocol and the Bill. I quote a brief paragraph of his words because they are apposite:
- Right now, as we sit here in Westminster in March of the millennium year, the United States and Russia are in stalemate. The prospective adoption by the United States of a "Star Wars" missile defence system has already led Russia, China and other nations to declare that this would abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and lead to a more confrontational military posture between the US and Russia, and the US and China.
- These three treaties--the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--underpin the current arms control regime. They are in danger of coming apart at a time when more material for making weapons of mass destruction is available worldwide than ever before.
There is still the possibility for these three treaties to be saved, and for a return to progress on multi-lateral nuclear disarmament. But it will require leadership. Britain is uniquely placed to assume this leadership role: strong influence is required in Washington, and as a result of the special relationship between our two countries, the influence of the British is particularly strong.
It gives rise to some important questions, not the least of which is: if the recent stories that the UK wishes to join the United States to extend a new anti-ballistic missile arrangement not only to North America, but to western Europe are true, that in itself will raise questions with regard to the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government on the protocol and the Bill. If Mr. Douglas is correct and if I interpret his remarks correctly, the UK Government, in wishing to go ahead and to move forward with an anti-ballistic missile arrangement, are totally at odds with the ethos, if not the terms, of the protocol and the Bill, so the Government need to come clean as to where they stand on that important issue.
Mr. Keetch: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what his position is and--perhaps it would be more enlightening--what the position of his Front-Bench team is on British participation in national missile defence? We have made our position clear. The Government, as he knows, have not yet made their position clear. I would be delighted and interested to know what his position is.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |