| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Group Personal Accident Insurance (Regulation)
Jim Sheridan accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit employers from benefiting from the death or illness of employees as a result of group insurance policies taken out without the employee's consent: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 175].
Orders of the Day
Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords]
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
1.44 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am pleased that we have reached Third Reading of this important Bill. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their support in getting it to this stage.
Colleagues who have followed proceedings on the Bill will recall that it is essentially a technical measure, but it might be useful to remind them of the background to the adapted conventional armed forces in Europe treaty—CFE treaty. The original CFE treaty was signed between NATO and former Warsaw pact countries in 1990. Its aim was to reduce holdings of military equipment and to establish a secure and stable balance of forces in Europe to eliminate the capability of a surprise attack or the initiation of large-scale offensive action. It limits holdings—on a bloc-to-bloc basis—of five categories of heavy weapons: battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. An intrusive inspection regime was established as part of the treaty so that states parties could verify each other's holdings of those weapons to ensure that they were kept within treaty limits. The Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991 implemented certain provisions of the treaty and enabled us to ratify it.
The adapted CFE treaty was signed in 1999. It limits the same five categories of heavy weapons but replaces the bloc-to-bloc limits with national and territorial ceilings. The adapted treaty also encourages greater transparency by providing for enhanced international inspections. It allows new states that are not party to the original CFE treaty to join, but only after all 30 signatories have ratified the adapted treaty. The UK has not yet ratified the adapted treaty, but we are keen to do so once Russia meets the commitments that it made to Georgia and Moldova at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Istanbul when the treaty was signed. This short, technical Bill therefore makes necessary changes to the existing legislation so that we will be ready to ratify once the conditions are right.
On Second Reading and in Committee, hon. Members expressed reservations about the fact that the Bill contains powers that provide for future amendments to the CFE treaty relating to inspections that require implementation in the UK to be given effect by way of Order in Council. I once again assure hon. Members that the purpose of that provision is to allow small, technical changes to the 1991 Act to be taken forward without the need to use up valuable parliamentary time. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in the other place has confirmed that it considers that level of delegation and control to be appropriate.
The report on the Bill by the Select Committee on Defence recommends that the Ponsonby rule should be applied when we decide to proceed with ratification of
the adapted CFE treaty. As the Government confirmed in their response to the report, the Ponsonby rule will indeed be applied. When the Secretary of State decides that the time is right to ratify the adapted CFE treaty, and thus that we are in a position to make the commencement order to bring the Act into force, we will notify the House of our intention.Ratification of the adapted CFE treaty will be an important step towards creating the right security environment in Europe. It will be a clear sign of our willingness to work with the other states parties to the treaty to ensure a safe and prosperous future in Europe. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their support in getting the Bill this far.
1.48 pm
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): I have no intention of unnecessarily detaining the House by rehearsing points about the Bill that have already been made. I thank the Minister for setting out the background to the Bill. The Opposition have tabled no amendments and the clarifications that we sought on Second Reading and in Committee have broadly been given.
In the light of that, we have no objections to raise on Third Reading. As we have done throughout the Bill's passage, we merely state our support for its contents and recognise the important role that the 1990 treaty has played in bringing greater stability to Europe. We hope that the 1999 agreement, which the Bill will implement in UK law, will continue to add to that peace and stability.
I thank the Minister for his helpful responses to our queries. In the spirit of the bipartisan co-operation that has marked the Bill's consideration, which is to be applauded, we look forward to its final passage into law.
1.49 pm
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Sadly, the Bill's significance is not matched by the attendance in the Chamber this afternoon. Nevertheless, as we discussed on Second Reading and briefly in Committee, it offers an important extension of arms control and inspections. In an era of rogue states and international terrorism, we should not lose sight of
the threat of world war, which the end of the cold war has reduced significantly. Like the Minister and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), we urge Russia to resolve its difficulties with Georgia and Moldova, and hope that the treaty can be ratified as soon as possible. Like the Conservatives, we continue to support the Bill.1.50 pm
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): On behalf of Back Benchers from all parties, may I congratulate the Minister and Opposition spokesman on what they have said about the Bill today?
1.51 pm
Angus Robertson (Moray): It would be wrong to miss the opportunity to have a full house so, on behalf of the main Opposition parties in Scotland and Wales, may I give the measure our wholehearted support? Having recently returned from Georgia, I am aware that there are unresolved issues in the Caucasus relating to this important measure. I sincerely hope that the federal Government of Russia will look closely at their commitments in Georgia. In general, however, the Bill is important and commands the respect of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
EUROPEAN UNION (ACCESSIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
- That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Accessions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21st May 2003:
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Gillian Merron.]
European Union (Accessions) Bill
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out from "instrument" to the end of line 17 and insert—
(5A) Regulations may not be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5B) But, in the case of regulations other than the first set of regulations under this section, subsection (5A) does not apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency they should be made without being approved in draft.
(5C) Where by virtue of subsection (5B) regulations are made without being approved in draft, the regulations —
(a) must be laid before Parliament, and
(b) cease to have effect at the end of the period mentioned in subsection (5D) unless they are approved during that period by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5D) The period referred to in subsection (5C)(b) is the period of 40 days —
(a) beginning with the day on which the regulations are made, and
(b) ignoring any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(5E) The fact that regulations cease to have effect by virtue of subsection (5C)—
(a) does not affect the lawfulness of anything done before the regulations cease to have effect, and
(b) does not prevent the making of new regulations.
1.52 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Bill was thoroughly debated on Second Reading, in Committee and in the Lords. The Government have been willing to accept amendments, and this afternoon we shall consider the Lords amendment, which is designed to subject the regulations to affirmative resolution, so that issues about controlling the movement of people from the enlarged European Union with the 10 new accession countries can be brought to the House rapidly for debate and decision. I do not want to rehearse arguments that have already been made at the Dispatch Box, in Committee and in another place, and invite the House to support the Lords amendment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |