| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Colman: The matters that I read out earlier were from the written evidence given at a Select Committee meeting. I was not quoting evidence given to the Select Committee orally, which has not yet been disclosed.
Mr. Wilshire: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was disclosing confidential information. I was saying that I would find it difficult to follow his helpful points and references to publicly available information. The difficulty is mine, not his. I am not sure what is confidential and what is not. I have heard everything, whereas the hon. Gentleman has heard only that part that is public.
I am sorry that the Minister did not explain why the Bill should have been given priority by the Government over other parliamentary business. I regularly read in the newspapers, and hear it said around the Palace, that the Government are pressed for parliamentary time, but we have been offered no explanation of why the Bill has been given priority. It has been hanging around for a couple of years without appearing urgent, so why has it become urgent now?
Dr. Julian Lewis: I apologise for having missed the early stages of this debate, but I am disturbed to hear that the Bill has been attempted systematically over two years or so. We have been told that the UK would be one of
relatively few signatories to the additional protocol, which suggests that the Government were once anxious that we should sign it before virtually anyone else.
Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that point in some detail, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He should keep it in mind that only eight countries have signed up to the protocol, and he will see why I think that figure relevant when I come to discuss the countries involved.
Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden): There is a stronger case than the one my hon. Friend is making. During the past two years, the strategy behind the non-proliferation and test ban treaties has become flawed. India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons. It is easy to disappear into the minutiae of individual clauses in Second Reading debates, but we should be rethinking the entire purpose of the Bill to see whether we can do something to stop proliferators by mechanisms other than this failed one.
Mr. Wilshire: Exactly so. I shall return to that point when I have concluded my response to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who suggested that there had been regular attempts during the past two years to pass the Bill through the House. What he did not hear earlier was a discussion of how few attempts had, in fact, been made. The Bill was tried as a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Putney, which is why that hon. Gentleman made such a helpful speech explaining his position. In two years, the Government's best effort lay in having a private Member divert himself from whatever he felt passionate about to pilot through a Bill that they wanted to shuffle through late on a Friday afternoon. Nothing much else has been done.
Only eight countries have signed the protocol, suggesting that it is not all that important. The Minister has made no effort to tell us what has suddenly changed.
Mr. Savidge: I want to correct an impression possibly given by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in his intervention. Neither India nor Pakistan is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a fact from which we should surely draw the lesson that it would be better to strengthen and widen the treaty.
Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman reinforces what my right hon. Friend said. However, we must tackle a point on which the Minister conspicuously failed to touch--why this matter should be given priority over others.
Mr. David Davis: May I remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) that I negotiated the test ban treaty on behalf of the United Kingdom? Both that treaty and the non-proliferation treaty have a proliferation aim built into them. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that India and Pakistan have not signed, but those countries provide a clear weather vane as to the direction in which the world is going and the ineffectiveness of the treaty.
Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful for that intervention. It adds some facts to the debate on a matter on which my
right hon. Friend is an expert. It also puts me on notice to watch my step, as I am standing just behind a walking expert--
Mr. Wilshire: I take the point.
Mr. Bercow: I may be able to resolve the uncertainty in my hon. Friend's mind about why Ministers attach such importance to a speedy passage of the Bill. Would that not assist the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he makes his scheduled visit to an important international conference, at which he will mix with extremely important, highly respected, influential figures from the international community? Obviously, the hon. Gentleman will wish to display his wares in the form of a successfully passed Bill.
Mr. Wilshire: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but while I am many things, some of which I hope he approves of, I am not a clairvoyant. My ability to answer questions about what may be in the mind of the Minister is therefore minimal, if not non-existent. I must leave it to the Minister to tell us what he has in mind.
Mr. Leigh: This conversazione between my hon. Friend and others worries me enormously. A few centuries ago, Parliament was prepared to declare civil war because a Government sought, through the Ship Money Act 1640, to allow inspectors to enter private property. The Government sought to edge this Bill in through the private Member's Bill procedure, then sat on it for two years before introducing it on a quiet Monday afternoon. What is going on? Where are our parliamentary colleagues who should stand up for the freedom of the individual to prevent the Executive--and foreigners--from invading their homes?
Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a splendid attempt to do exactly that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is a champion of the rights of the individual, will do the same while I cheer him on.
Mr. Maclean: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the point made about the Minister of State going to the international conference to mix with others who have signed the protocol, ratified it and brought it into law, may I point out that the Minister will in fact mix with very few people--the presidents of Uzbekistan, New Zealand, Monaco, Jordan, Japan and Indonesia, and the Pope?
Mr. Wilshire: I wish to talk about that point in due course, but having been to Uzbekistan with the Foreign Affairs Committee and tasted the flavour of its regime and heard something of its President, I sincerely recommend to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he take some precaution against being bored out of his mind, and that he not pay too much attention to any assurance that he may be given.
Mr. Colman: The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that the UK Government should take a lead in ensuring
that the world becomes less threatening, and in non-proliferation. On that basis, does he support the Minister's visit to the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty; and will he provide leadership by ensuring that we ratify the protocol ahead of the meeting?
Mr. Wilshire: All will be revealed to the hon. Gentleman as my speech unfolds. Other Members may not know what I do about the hon. Gentleman, and they may have thought that he was about to say something about the Holy See. He and I both happen to be Methodists, so I knew that he would not, but I shall clarify my position on his other points in due course.
Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be seduced by the invitation offered by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), and that he will agree that it is much more important to scrutinise the Bill properly and get it right than to boost the ego of a minor, junior Minister who is footling off to a ridiculous conference to exchange ludicrous pleasantries with lots of other self-important people.
Mr. Wilshire: I have disclosed to the House the masonic-like links between myself and the hon. Member for Putney, but the Methodist Church is a broad one; its members have many points of view. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on many matters, and that is one of them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is not conducting Question Time. He should make some progress on his speech because other hon. Members are trying to catch my eye.
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me your protection from my hon. Friends and from the hon. Member for Putney. I shall indeed do as you suggest.
Although the Bill is largely non-controversial--
Mr. Wilshire: I said "largely". There are, none the less, some huge reservations about the detail of the measure that have not yet been mentioned.
We need to consider three matters before deciding whether the Bill should be read a Second time. The first partly relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Putney. Will the Bill help to make the world a safer place? We must face up to that question and we must put the measure into the general context of nuclear control and disarmament. Before we vote, we must ask whether the measure is key to making progress on those matters or whether it is merely a sideline.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |