| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I have been in the House long enough to know not to be led too far down such a track. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was intending to be helpful, but I will leave it to him, with his vast knowledge and experience of these matters, to explore the possibilities of intimate searches or the concealment of nuclear bits and pieces on or in the body. It is not a matter for me.
I am coming perilously close to the conclusion of my remarks. I say that so that whoever follows me can get in the mood. It may seem odd that I shall not be dwelling excessively on clause 5, to which I now turn my attention. Clause 5, which is the most contentious part of the Bill and causes us the most concern, has already been referred to quite extensively during our exchanges and interventions, so I do not need to gild that particular lily.
It is self-evident that clause 5 will cause the most concern. I argued earlier that its provisions may well cause a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. That notwithstanding, it gives the agency unlimited powers to allow foreign nationals to come into this country on an automatic visa. The Government, who represent us and are supposed to protect us, are signing away their power to prevent a foreign national from coming in under the aegis of the agency, which has enormous powers under clause 5.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend see a possibility of conflict if one of the inspectors, allowed in on a year-long visa, is found to be doing something
improper when he is not inspecting, and the Government wish to expel him, as we normally do when unacceptable espionage is carried out? Difficulties could arise if it were claimed that, according to the protocol, his visa could not be withdrawn.
Mr. Forth: Yes, that gives rise to a series of consequential questions on how far the agency inspectors may be covered by diplomatic immunity. Are they simply foreign nationals to whom a visa has been given for the purposes of the protocol and the Bill, or do they have an overriding and superior diplomatic immunity of a kind to which my hon. Friend alludes? I do not know the answer to those questions. The Minister may be able to tell us. This is the sort of matter to which we shall want to return in Committee and on Report.
These examples serve to illustrate why the Bill needs this thorough examination. I have been only superficial so far, of course. The really thorough examination must come, perforce, in Committee and on Report. That is another reason why the Minister will have to tell the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he may have to disappoint his colleagues at this important international meeting by saying that, regrettably, the matter is still under close parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr. Maclean: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has passed on from the immunity question. However, I am sure that he will recall in the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, when it was set up, that article 15 on privileges and immunity states:
- The agency shall enjoy in the territory of each member such legal capacity and such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has confirmed our worst fears. We are adding privilege upon privilege, access upon access and right upon right. This appears to be outside the control of the Government who, for the time being, represent the people of this country.
Clause 5(4) and (5)--which deal with an authorised officer or constable accompanying an agency inspector--may seem reassuring, but the word "may" is included. I would have preferred "shall". We need the maximum reassurance, and to weaken the provision in this way could give rise to greater concern.
Mr. Bercow: Is not the concern otherwise that the use of the word "may" in clause 5(5) could conflict with the requirements of clause 5(7), and we would not want an internal contradiction within one clause of this significant Bill?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's forensic and analytical skills are unsurpassed. I have identified sufficient contradictions within the protocol to cause concern, and we are now teasing out contradictions within the Bill. Thank goodness for proper parliamentary scrutiny. If, by some ghastly mistake, the Bill--in its previous incarnation as a private Member's Bill--had been passed, as it had been disgracefully suggested, without proper scrutiny, goodness knows what would have happened.
On the face of it, clause 5(6) should provide reassurance, but fails to do so completely. It says:
- in any proceedings any question arises whether a person at any time when purporting to exercise powers under this section was or was not an Agency inspector, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State stating any fact relevant to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the answer contained in the clause, where it says
- If in any proceedings any question arises?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may be correct, and the Minister will have to look at this again. All Bills are carefully drafted, and each word has meaning and significance. However, the implication is that, if a matter arises during the inspection, a certificate may be required, suggesting that the Secretary of State would have to provide a certificate during an inspection. Those of us with even a glancing knowledge of Government know that that is unlikely. The danger is that this invalidate the inspection process.
We are back to the paradox of the Bill. The protocol and the Bill give the most enormous powers not only to domestic institutions--which at least have a degree of accountability and are subject to the force of the law--but to these strange and foreign institutions, manned by foreign nationals, who will come to this country and will be unaccountable to either the democratic or judicial process. On the other hand, we have apparent weakness, deficiencies and lacunae in the protocol and Bill which may undermine the effectiveness of the proposal.
The Bill is a mess, and the more I look at it, the more doubts I have. I hope that, even if the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, it will want to examine it closely in Committee and subsequently.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I shall try to offer some guidance to the House in accordance with "Erskine May". Second Reading debates are intended to deal with general principles. I have given the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)-- and other right hon. and hon. Members who have intervened--considerable leeway. However, those interventions which go into detail are matters for the Committee stage, when the House is entitled to the closest scrutiny of any proposed legislation before it. We will now proceed on the basis that we are dealing with the general principles of the Bill.
Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you expect, notwithstanding the helpful guidance
that you have just proffered to the House, that, where a point of detail is of concern to a Member to such a degree that it will affect his or her judgment as to the merits of the principle of the Bill, it is legitimate to raise such an inquiry, either via a speech or through an intervention?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is always a matter of proportionality. It is perfectly in order to flag up a point that might require detailed examination at the appropriate stage of the Bill. It is not in order to have that detailed scrutiny of a small point or a sub-clause at Second Reading. "Erskine May" is quite clear; we should deal with general principles.
6.58 pm
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it would have been enormously helpful to me had you given it earlier. During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I was fretting that my speech was far too general, and I was beginning to worry that you would rule me out of order. I have therefore spent a little while trying to get the details that you now say I do not need.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) kindly referred. As he said, the Committee is carrying out an inquiry into weapons of mass destruction, which is highly relevant to the matter before us. I am at a disadvantage, because whereas the hon. Gentleman will have been given by the authors a number of documents--to which he has, quite properly, referred--much of the paperwork that I have received is covered by the rules of the House. That means that I cannot refer to them without being in danger of disclosing confidential information that has not yet been published by the Select Committee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |