| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous in giving way. Is not it more likely that Colonel Gaddafi would say, "Britain has implemented legislation with regard only to civil installations and it is still keeping inspectors out of military installations. I wish to copy the great example that the British Government have set."?
Mr. Cohen: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although progress is made step by step and the Bill is an important step forward. I support his suggestion that it should apply to military establishments as well, which would tighten up things for other countries.
Binding the Crown would also allow for independent judicial tests to establish whether the Government had acted in compliance with the legislation. That is important to ensure that Britain not only complies with this important non-proliferation measure, but is seen to comply with it, and that is a positive signal to send to the rest of the world. Conversely, not do so would send such a damaging signal to the rest of the world that we could lose many of the political benefits that strengthened safeguards could bring.
If another country alleged that Britain was not complying with the strengthened safeguards measures, how would it seem to the rest of the world if it had correctly stated that the Bill did not remove Crown immunity? That would depict this country in an unfair light. However, the remedy is simple. Standard clauses on binding the Crown appeared in legislation as diverse as the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. Indeed, Crown immunity was lifted from atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston, in April 1993.
There is no reason why such a provision should not be in the Bill. In fact, I cannot understand why it has been left out. I am not a suspicious person by nature, but if the Government were to resist the inclusion of a standard clause on binding the Crown I would wonder what was behind it. I would support a Bill that bound the Crown and did not allow Crown immunity in this respect. I shall be interested in the Minister's response to that.
I applaud the Government for including the provision in clause 7. It is almost identical to the amendment that I proposed to the Chemical Weapons Bill, which made it an offence for someone knowingly or recklessly to make a false or misleading statement to an inspector. I am glad that the Government support that. It has been a long-fought battle to get such a provision in arms control legislation. I first raised the question of making it an offence to give false information to inspectors when the House debated the Bill that gave effect to the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty in 1991. My amendment to the Chemical Weapons Bill was accepted by the previous Government in 1995.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving way. Will he explain to the House how this provision would take effect in countries that are
not democracies? If a misleading statement were made to one of the inspectors in Iraq or in some other such undemocratic country, what sanction would be imposed against that country?
Mr. Cohen: That is an interesting point. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about, for example, the Soviet Union not complying with agreements during the cold war, although I suspect that there was non-compliance on both sides. When the Soviet Union was found to be in breach, the United States took it up with the Soviets. That is one good thing that could be done. Even then, the United States thought it better to have the Soviet Union on board for such treaties than to have the treaties wiped out. I know that that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but it is much better to have countries signed up to these treaties, which can then be strengthened in a step-by-step approach, than not to have them at all.
Opposition Members have raised the issue of searches being carried out by people of a different sex--a different gender. That is not right, and it could create problems. However, the problem could be dealt with simply. I hope that the Government will consider amending clause 4(7), which states:
- No constable shall, by virtue of subsection (6)(b), search a person of the opposite sex.
Mr. Fabricant: The Minister accused me of being interested only in sex, but I am interested in the rights of individuals in this country. Even if the hon. Gentleman persuaded the House to change the word from "constable" to "person", it would have no effect because clause 5 would prevent any control by the House over foreign inspectors coming into the United Kingdom.
Mr. Cohen: I understand that point, but the Bill will be the law of the land. If it said that a man could not search a woman, which is the obvious example, another woman would have to accompany the inspector. That is not unreasonable.
Mr. Cohen: I shall give way, but I am coming to the end of my speech.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his usual courteous manner. May I advise him carefully to think again about his suggestion? If he removes the word "constable" and replaces it with "person", he is not narrowing but widening the search to a range of other people who are not police officers, male or female, and are not qualified or trained in searching techniques. That may diminish the freedom of the individual, rather than enhance it.
Mr. Cohen: I do not think that that is so, because elsewhere in the protocol it provides that they should be proper, authorised inspectors--so I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's point.
This is a good, important treaty that can be used for the future, and we should build on it. The alternative is dire. None of the Opposition Members who have spoken has said what would happen if the non-proliferation treaty were weakened or got rid of--[Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who does not take that position. With those few remarks, I support the Bill and recommend it to the House.
8.15 pm
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). That is one of the longest speeches I have heard him make in the House, but it was certainly worth listening to.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In what way can you make it possible for me to let my constituents know that the Conservative party is deliberately blocking the Bill to provide free television licences for 75-year-olds?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Maclean: I would happily let the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) participate in this debate, and he could make his points in his own way, but he has not been present for any of our discussions. He was not even present for the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, or to hear the detailed points made by Opposition Members. Fortunately for the House, and for myself, I shall be brief in this debate, because most of the main points were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and I want to save my main remarks for the BBC Bill, which we shall debate after this Bill. I do not want to tire myself out on this Bill, because I have important remarks--well, I consider them important, but the House may not--to make on that Bill, and I wish to save myself for that.
Much has changed while you were away from the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker--although at times you may be forgiven for thinking that not much had changed. There is now a certain consensus across the House. One has heard of the famous Rooker-Wise amendment. I look forward, with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, to the Cohen-Maclean amendments on Report, which may deal with the vexed problem of searches or seek to give the Bill more teeth and deal with the problem of the inspection of military as well as civilian installations.
It was said at the start of our discussion of this important measure that this is an historic day and that the Bill is of historic importance. I shall briefly touch on the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We are having this significant debate only because my right hon. Friend and I objected to the fact that the Government tried to bounce this measure through the private Member's Bill procedure last year. If a private Member in the top 20 in the ballot had presented this Bill, it would have had a proper Second Reading, we would have had this discussion on a Friday morning, and the Bill would have proceeded apace. Attempting to bounce it through on the nod at the end of business on a Friday was not an appropriate way to
deal with important legislation that implements an international treaty, a copy of which I have in front of me, better for the purposes of information.The Bill is historic, and we must consider whether it will make the world a safer place or whether we are deluding ourselves--and that, although the Bill and the protocol deal with crucial matters, they will nevertheless not make a jot of difference. Is it merely a gesture? If so, might that gesture persuade other countries to take a step forward and participate in nuclear non-proliferation treaties? Will it persuade them to sign up to the protocol?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |