HL Deb 28 April 2004 vol 660 cc860-2

8.2 p.m.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 19 April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order was laid before the House on 19 April 2004, together with an explanatory memorandum, which is now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. The purpose of the order is to enable the Government to implement their obligations in the appendix to the agreement signed in 1999 between the United Kingdom and the preparatory commission for the comprehensive test ban treaty organisation (CTBTO) on the conduct of activities, including post-certification activities relating to international monitoring facilities for the comprehensive test ban treaty. The UK ratified that treaty in 1998. The CTBT provides for the establishment of the CTBTO. The appendix confers legal capacity on the preparatory commission. It confers privileges and immunities on the preparatory commission, its representatives, representatives of its members, its officials and its experts. Those privileges and immunities are comparable to those accorded to similar international organisations.

The agreement facilitates the activities of the provisional technical secretariat of the preparatory commission of the CTBTO in conducting in the UK and other member states the following: an inventory of existing monitoring facilities; a site survey; the upgrading or establishment of monitoring facilities; and the certification of facilities to international monitoring systems standards. It does so with the goal of facilitating the continued testing, provisional operation as necessary and maintenance of the international monitoring system in pursuit of an effective comprehensive test ban treaty. That work has to be carried out to ensure that the effective monitoring arrangements can really be put into place.

I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. We shall not oppose it. It is right and proper that officials of the provisional technical secretariat of the preparatory commission of the CTBTO have the status, the diplomatic immunity and the appropriate privileges for which Appendix 1 to the agreement provides. I have a couple of questions for the Minister.

I understand that the PTS started its work in Vienna in 1997. Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that it is working effectively and positively? Does the agreement extend to the overseas territories?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord—

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I also plan to be brief, but perhaps not as brief as the Minister thought. We on these Benches also support the order, but I have three questions for the Minister.

First, what influence do the Government plan to exert on America to think about joining the treaty organisation, although it seems unlikely that it will do so at the moment? Secondly, the Government have recently provided £2 million to equip the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston with the means to design and build a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons. Under the terms of the treaty, how will the new tactical weapons, or "bunker-busters", that I believe the establishment is looking at be tested? They obviously cannot be tested in the real world. Are they to be tested just under simulation, or are they to be tested as part of the Americans' programme if the Americans do not sign up to the treaty and start testing again? Thirdly, is the policy set out by the Secretary of State for Defence in March 2002, that first strike with nuclear weapons is to be considered as a British option, still to be adhered to? This seems to be rather a strange attitude to take. On the one hand, we are talking about signing up to a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; on the other hand, we are talking about using the nuclear arsenal which, under the obligations we have at the moment, we should be considering dismantling rather than using. We are looking at that nuclear arsenal as a means of intimidation as regards the rest of the world.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, that welcome intervention from the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, has allowed time for the Box to send me all sorts of interesting answers to your Lordships' questions. I thank both noble Lords for the support that they have given. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, is quite right in saying that we should confer the legal capacity on the preparatory commission for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We should ensure that it is in the same position as similar other international bodies.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked me how the preparatory commission has been working. It has been working well. It is, of course, the Civil Service element of the CTBT and assists the preparatory commission in making the preparations come into force. As we all know, its duties include the supervising and co-ordinating of the operation of the international monitoring system. Once the treaty has entered into force, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation will take over from the preparatory commission, as I am sure the noble Lord has noted.

The noble Lord also asked about the position of the overseas territories. The agreement does not apply to the overseas territories; a separate appendix or appendices will be concluded, setting out that the agreement applies to them. That will be done by having an exchange of notes with the appendix or appendices annexed. There will be a further stage to go through with regard to the overseas territories.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the United States. I so often have to stand at this Dispatch Box and persuade the opposition parties—particularly, if I may say so, the Liberal Democrats—that there really are differences between the United Kingdom and the United States on a whole range of policy issues. It is really no secret that the UK and the US have different views over the value of this treaty. The United States is well aware of our views; we agree on the importance of supporting the international monitoring system, for which the United States continues to provide funding. The United States reduced its funding to the CTBTO in 2002, but the reduction was small compared to its overall financial contribution. I have spent quite some time trying to persuade our friends in the United States that our view on these and similar matters is the right view to take. I am not deterred by my lack of success and shall continue to try so to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me a rather technical question about the way in which the testing would be carried out and contrasted the system in this country with that of the United States. My understanding is that the system that will be used will be that of the United Kingdom. Unless I find that I have committed a faux pas in giving that assurance to your Lordships, we shall leave it at that. If I have made a mistake, I shall write to the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Astor, to correct it.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me about the whole question of first strike. The fact is that the United Kingdom is not going to give up the option. We all know that it would be used in extraordinarily extreme circumstances. The noble Lord is experienced enough to know that it is highly unlikely that a Minister at the House of Lords Dispatch Box at 12 minutes past eight on a Wednesday evening would turn over what the Secretary of State for Defence had said. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I have no change in policy to announce on that particular issue.

On Question, Motion agreed to.