---

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): What about the Swedes?

Mr. Luff: They do not seem to have a national ceiling under the adaptation agreement.

Crucially, the Bill and the adaptation agreement provide for greater entry rights to private land under the inspections procedure. This is one of the issues on which we seek further clarification from the Minister, for despite the noble objectives of the Bill, it is a technical Bill and deserves scrutiny on specific points.

I turn first to the limits and burdens under the new agreement. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the annual limit on inspections that can be carried out by one state in any given year. Equally importantly, given the tables on page 10 of the third report of the Defence Committee, does the Minister envisage that the increased liability under the 1999 agreement to host inspections under section VII, albeit with the proviso that some may be replaced by section VIII inspections, will result in an increased financial burden or burden of inconvenience to our defence establishment, or does he believe that the number of inspections carried out will remain well under the maximum limits in practice? I suspect that his answer will be the latter, so some evidence of the reasons for his conclusion would be welcome.

Similarly, what will be the impact on other parties to the treaty, especially the younger countries? There is a difficult balance to be struck between ensuring that inspections do not place an intolerably high burden on the host country, and ensuring that the inspection and verification regime is suitably strict and transparent enough to guarantee that all parties to the treaty are honouring their obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the balance will be successfully achieved under the adapted treaty? I hope for rather more than a straight "Yes" from the Minister. Some explanation of the grounds for his optimism would be appreciated.

18 Sept 2003 : Column 1112

One of the most important issues in the Bill is the impact on the private sector. It is reassuring that in paragraph 18 of its report, the Defence Committee states that it believes that the position for private operators will not be

"significantly different after the Adaptation Agreement is implemented than before".

The Committee gives its reasons for that. It states:

"This is for a number of reasons: in the past less than half of the existing liability has been taken up; inspecting states will bear the cost of conducting additional inspections, and as new members join NATO the pool of other states who might wish to inspect UK forces is likely to diminish."

However, there is the potential for increased inspection of privately owned land, as the Government have acknowledged, if only because of the increased private sector role in defence matters. If my memory of my reading for the debate serves me correctly, we are discussing only matters that can be concealed behind doors of more than 2m in width. I believe that that appears in the agreement.

I do not wish to appear to be nit-picking, but I do think that the explanatory notes are a little over optimistic when they state:

"The Bill will have no impact on business."

In this context, I shall speak for a moment about Qinetiq, which has a geographically large establishment in my constituency, Mid-Worcestershire, at the former RAF Pershore site, which was a dispersal site for Vulcan bombers. The site has acquired unlooked-for fame as a result of Government policy in other very different areas, but it is one of more than 25 Qinetiq sites, of which at least two others are in Malvern in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), and they may all be affected by the Bill.

Qinetiq is the company in which the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—DERA—was vested back in 2001. Since its establishment in July 2001, Qinetiq has taken ownership of these formerly MOD-owned sites, including training areas, testing sites and airfields. I know from my visits to the Pershore establishment that it is possible that inspections may be required there. Under the 1999 agreement on the adaptation of the CFE treaty, as the Library briefing paper notes, these will be defined as "declared sites" and thereby made subject to inspections under the Bill. The number of sites run by Qinetiq may well increase over the coming months and years. That, I imagine, is the Government's expectation.

Although I note that no private company or owners of a site have yet refused an inspection, I believe it is important that such companies do not risk falling foul of overly intrusive or demanding inspections through no fault of their own, but simply through an over-optimistic interpretation of the implications of the legislation. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that all those contractors, land-owners and other groups, such as Qinetiq, which could potentially be affected, are fully aware of the implications? What consultations have there been with such groups? How confident are the Government that they have got the assessment right?

I turn next to the Baltic and Balkan states. I find it interesting that they, particularly the Baltic states, are absent from the treaty. I understand that the fact the Baltic states are not parties to it has been a cause of concern to Russia in the past, given that it might permit

18 Sept 2003 : Column 1113

countries to station large amounts of conventional military equipment there, yet not be in breach of the treaty. As the Library note puts it, Russia believes the absence of the Baltic states from the treaty constitutes a loophole that could allow NATO to deploy large numbers of forces and equipment to a potentially threatening position, without reference to CFE limits.

Of course, we are pleased that the new agreement contains provisions for the accession of states that are not at present party to the CFE treaty. I understand, and the Minister may be able to confirm when he winds up the debate, that the Baltic states have indicated that they would consider joining as part of their accession to NATO. Could the Minister, when he sums up, set out what progress has been made in that respect and tell us whether any substantive negotiations have yet taken place? Could he also enlighten us as to the position on the Balkan states that are not parties to the treaty?

I shall speak briefly about Russia. In its helpful report, the Defence Committee stated:

"Because the Act would give the Government the ability to ratify the Agreement by Statutory Instrument, consideration of the Bill itself needs to be focussed on the question of ratification."

I am conscious that the House may feel that my remarks so far have not properly addressed the essential question. There are a number of extremely important outstanding non-compliance issues in relation to Russia, Georgia and Moldova, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) will raise in greater depth in his winding-up speech. I simply say at this point that despite some progress, the on-going problems remain a matter of concern to the Opposition. The Minister should be aware that we will seek to explore those problems later in the debate. I hope that he will address them, as they go to the heart of the timetable of our ratification of the adapted treaty.

Mention of timetables brings me to what the Minister will be glad to hear is my last but one point. I should like to register my surprise that the Bill has taken so long to reach this House, especially as it completed its passage in the other place on 30 January this year. That time lag alone constitutes a compelling reason why we should be fully updated about what has happened in the past eight months. Given that recent days have not exactly been over-burdened with legislation, I am surprised that the Government have delayed the Bill so long. The conspiracy theorist in me asks why that is the case. Was it kept back merely to occupy us during this rather awkward September fortnight that the Government have landed on the House or is there some more substantial and genuine reason for the delay? I think that the House should be told, as the Bill has languished in purgatory for an extraordinarily long period.

My last point concerns the statutory instrument procedure, to which the Minister referred. The Opposition have reservations about the fact that the Bill contains powers to provide that future changes made by Her Majesty by Order in Council will be effected by statutory instrument and not primary legislation. It is in that specific regard that the official Opposition's charity is being stretched a little. We are looking for a rather more categorical reassurance from the Minister than he

18 Sept 2003 : Column 1114

offered in his speech. Yes, the Government reassured the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which expressed its contentment with their plans. In November 2002, now almost a year ago, it said:

"In view of the limited nature of the power and the fact that it will be subject to affirmative procedure, we consider that this level of delegation and control is appropriate."

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness will return to that subject, as well as to ratification issues, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. In essence, our position is that we regard the procedures proposed in the Bill as inadvisable, but not, on this specific and limited occasion, objectionable. We seek a reassurance over and above that which the Minister gave the House in his speech that the Government will not in future cite that exception to the general rule that treaty matters are matters for primary legislation as a precedent in respect of other treaties or modifications to them.

As the Minister knows, other more contentious treaties are in prospect, and they could also be subject to later revision. That revision might be significant in some people's eyes, if not in other people's. Opposition Members may judge such revision to be fundamental, even if the Government change their mind on that question. We remain of the view that primary legislation is the right way of dealing with treaties. I hope that he will confirm that that is the Government's view. I hope that the provision is the exception that tests the rule and does not break it.

The Minister referred to the Ponsonby rule, although he avoided that exact phrase. It is widely expected that the Government will embrace the so-called Ponsonby rule, and that appeared to be what the Minister said. It is an undertaking observed by Governments since the 1920s that treaties that have been signed and are subject to ratification are laid before the House for 21 days before being ratified. Indeed, the Government promised as much in their response to the Defence Committee in June:

"The Government is content to give a specific undertaking in the Second Reading debate on the Bill to notify the House at least 21 days in advance of its decision to proceed to ratification, to allow for additional discussion of the issues at that time."

I cannot immediately recall exactly the word that the Minister used on the Ponsonby rule in speaking about it towards the end of his speech, but it seemed to fall short of the wholehearted commitment that I thought we were getting in the Government's response to the Select Committee report.

---