§ Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ 11.4 am
§ Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)As we have now moved into Committee, we shall have some opportunity to scrutinise the Bill more closely, although, in the restricted time available, it may not be possible to explore exhaustively matters that deserve detailed attention. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has expressed the wish, which I endorse, that those matters be pursued in greater depth in another place—not least because of the significance of what we are doing today, not only to those who have campaigned so vigorously for the abolition of anti-personnel mines, but for our own forces, who rely on weapons to preserve both life and liberty.
It would not be a fitting tribute to those campaigners, including Diana, Princess of Wales, if we produced poor legislation in an attempt, however well intentioned, to rush the Bill through.
§ Mr. ColvinIf ever there was a case for a pre-legislative hearing, this Bill presents one. As a member of the Defence Select Committee, I regret that that Committee did not have time to examine the minutiae—although I take the opportunity to congratulate the Library on the speed with which it managed to produce a briefing note on the subject. With a measure such as this, where there is a conflict between the heart and the head, it is vital to consider the military implications, so I regret the fact that the Defence Select Committee did not have the opportunity to consider the matter before the Bill was brought forward.
§ Mrs. GillanMy hon. Friend's remarks speak for themselves, and I support what he said about the Library. I hope that when I raise issues under clause 1, the Minister will not tell me that things would be better if I had attended the briefing session. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that it is important for such matters to be discussed as a matter of record, in the open, rather than dealt with behind closed doors.
The Minister will appreciate the fact that we have not tabled amendments to the clause, but in the stand part debate I hope to give him the opportunity to explore a little of the thinking behind the definitions in the clause and to clarify what is included within the parameters of the legislation. It is important to everyone who is closely observing the passage of the Bill that we establish beyond doubt what is covered and what is not. That need has been illustrated by some of the discussions on Second Reading.
The definitions in the clause draw on the definitions in article 2 of the Ottawa convention, but they are not identical, and go beyond the convention. Will the Minister 1373 tell us why he considered it necessary to improve on the provisions of the convention, and whether these improvements are likely to be incorporated by other signatories to the convention?
I understand that the Government are not proceeding with the future anti-personnel scatterable mine project; I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the case. However, given that the Government are supposed to be procuring 29 vehicle-launched scatterable anti-tank mine systems known as Shielder, manufactured by Alliant Techsystems, will the Minister first confirm that procurement, and secondly, clarify the status of those systems in relation to the Bill?
The variety of scatterable mines produced by Alliant Techsystems is comprehensive, and includes those used in the Gator system, which has already been referred to, the m128 vehicle-towed mine dispenser—the GEMSS system—the Volcano multiple delivery system and several others. Those mines contain similar fusing, arming and functioning mechanisms and have interchangeable and compatible components. They all belong to the family of scatterable mines or FASCAM.
The same company that produces those mines also produces the Shielder mine, and the technology is obviously similar. Can the Minister confirm the status of the Shielder mines under the Bill, and tell me whether any components could fall foul of the provisions, or whether he is satisfied that nothing in the Bill prohibits the use of those mines? Can the Minister further clarify the issue and say whether an anti-disturbance fuse will be fitted to those mines? If an anti-handling device is fitted, surely that achieves the effect of turning the device into an anti-personnel mine? An explanation would assist me, the House and those who have raised the matter with me.
Command-detonated mines such as the M18A1 Claymore mine are currently exempt from the landmine ban, as they are command-detonated by electrical means. However, I understand that the Army, under ministerial clearance, could fit those mines with trip-wire booby trap switches. That could be authorised at a time of war by Government and almost any booby trap switch could be fitted to those mines.
Can the Minister tell me how he perceives the Claymore mines and whether he intends to alter the discretionary ministerial powers in any way, or to retain them for the sake of the efficacy of our armed services? In other words, can he confirm that nothing in the Bill will prevent a Minister from authorising the conversion of those mines into anti-personnel mines?
I do not want to detain the House, but it would be helpful to observers if the Minister could answer those questions. Perhaps he would also consider producing for the House a list of mines currently held in the United Kingdom or in the process of being procured, and identify whether they are banned by the legislation or excluded and, if the latter, the reason for that exclusion. That would go some way towards clarifying the definitions in clause 1.
I add my support for the Bill to the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I hope that the Minister will amplify those points, which will help with the interpretation of the Bill.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd)I was a little surprised at the mean-spirited way in which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) introduced her remarks. In view of the consensus on the need to introduce the Bill, it is a shame that an offer to brief the shadow Foreign and Defence Secretaries and their teams should be treated as an attempt to lull the Opposition into a false sense of security.
§ Mrs. GillanMy voice is failing, as I have a very sore throat, but I have never been called mean-spirited from the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. I was being extremely open. I welcome the provisions of the Bill, but, like every observer of the Bill, including Labour Members, I believe that the details deserve proper and open discussion in the forum of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark, as I am not being mean-spirited in any sense.
§ The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin)Order. My concern is that the Committee should concentrate on clause 1.
§ Mr. LloydUrged by you to make haste, Mr. Martin, I shall pass beyond the hon. Lady's exhortations.
Matters of definition are of the utmost importance, and there is an explicit distinction in the Ottawa convention between anti-personnel landmines and anti-tank mines. That is also clear in the Government's approach.
Some of the hon. Lady's questions about definition could properly have been answered at the technical briefing. It is equally proper to raise technical questions on the Floor of the House. There is no contradiction, as I hope the House will accept.
The Shielder system is not caught by the provisions of the treaty or of our own legislation, so it is effectively exempt. Inevitably, component parts would also be exempt under the Bill, as they would be components not of an anti-personnel landmine, but of an anti-tank mine. I hope that provides the reassurance that the hon. Lady seeks.
11.15 am
The United Kingdom does not have, and will not acquire, the Gator system. The Gator system is not part of the Shielder system, so the question does not arise whether Gator is a component part and whether it is legal under the Bill.
§ Mr. ColvinThat illustrates the problems that the House faces. The Shielder system may be designed to blow up vehicles, but in practice it will blow up people. It has a highly sensitive magnetic fuse, which can easily be set off by a person walking close to it. If the Government are to spend £62 million buying those weapons, we should be clear that they will not suddenly be deemed to be illegal under the convention.
§ Mr. LloydThe hon. Gentleman is technically wrong. Anti-handling devices—anti-tamper devices—are not operable in the same way as an anti-personnel landmine, by simple contact. Significantly more than that is required. It is not the sensitive device that the hon. Gentleman describes, but a much more robust system, 1375 which gives a different type of protection. It is important for the House to understand that there is not just a clear conceptual distinction, but a clear practical difference between the two. For those reasons, anti-handling devices on anti-tank mines do not fall within the remit of the Bill or the Ottawa convention.
I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady if I have not responded to all her questions, but I hope that I have demonstrated that technical queries can be fully answered on the Floor of the House. There is no reason to suggest that we are making slow progress, although we may be about to enter such a phase.
§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)One of the reasons why we are anxious to take the matter on the Floor of the House is that many technical experts who are involved in charities, such as the Mines Advisory Group, have asked the Ministry of Defence for technical details of the fusing mechanisms, to ascertain whether an anti-disturbance fuse is fitted, and that information has been denied to them on the ground that it is classified.
§ Mr. LloydI hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should make classified information available. Consistent with the need to protect our defence systems, the Ministry of Defence will make technical information available to the various interest groups, and has already done so.
§ Mr. George Robertsonindicated assent.
§ Mr. LloydMy right hon. Friend confirms that, so there can be no suggestion of an attempt to obstruct the progress of the Bill or to stifle national debate by failing to provide such information.
§ Mr. ColvinThe Ministry of Defence makes classified material available to the Defence Select Committee, which reinforces the argument for a pre-legislative inquiry into the matter. When the measure reaches the other place, I hope that a Select Committee will take evidence from experts—particularly regarding the military matters mentioned in the discussion—rather than plunging headlong into debates on the Floor of the Chamber without the necessary technical back-up.
§ Mr. LloydI have sought confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who, like all members of the Cabinet, is more than willing to attend meetings of the various Select Committees. Hon. Members may recall that that was a matter of debate across the House when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear the pleasure that he derives from appearing before Select Committees. The Secretary of State for Defence is happy to make information available to the Select Committee, but he informs me that no such invitation has been received.
We are now many months into the debate on anti-personnel landmines. It is not a new issue, and the types of systems that we are discussing this morning are not new. These technical questions could have been asked, but they were not. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary offered to give precisely that sort of technical briefing to the Opposition. That would have been a sensible way to proceed, but I record once again the fact that that invitation was not accepted.
§ Mrs. GillanWill the Minister confirm that he is now offering to provide an answer to my question about the 1376 anti-disturbance fuse on the Shielder mines and will give such information to the Select Committee? The Mines Advisory Group has not received a reply to that question, and the Minister has not clarified the issue in his remarks this morning.
§ Mr. LloydI have answered the hon. Lady already. However, for the sake of simplicity and so that there is no misunderstanding on her part, I shall try again.
The Shielder system will not detonate if merely touched inadvertently. That information is available to the Committee this morning. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence sent two long letters about that issue to precisely the sort of groups that the hon. Lady claims have not received any answers. The information is already in the public domain, but I shall put it on the record again this morning. Far from the Government's attempting to hide information from the Committee or the public, there has been a remarkable lack of interest on the part of Opposition Members regarding those technical questions. Nevertheless, we are happy to have spent 11 minutes answering the full range of technical questions posed by Opposition Members.
§ Mrs. GillanI cannot believe that the Minister has sat down; I fully expected him to speak for longer. He has singularly failed to answer my questions. He has not even mentioned Claymore mines or booby traps, and he has not responded to my request as to whether a list could be produced in order to clarify the situation for outside organisations. It is one of the most unsatisfactory responses that I have received from a Minister at the Dispatch Box. The Minister has failed to brief himself about this issue. He has been taking copious verbal briefings from his colleagues on the Front Bench, and the record will show that he has failed to answer the questions posed very reasonably from this side of the Chamber.
I am seeking information, not just for myself and the Committee, but for observers outside who will be disappointed by the Minister's reply. I shall give the Minister an opportunity to study my remarks and to write to me before the Bill reaches the other place.
§ Mr. MacShaneMean-spirited.
§ Mrs. GillanI am not being mean-spirited; it is not in my nature. However, those matters must be answered fully and I hope that the Minister will write to me. He may not be fully briefed in these areas and the matters are technical and complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) pointed out. However, we owe the observers of these proceedings the details that I have requested.
On 9 July, the Mines Advisory Group wrote to the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and said:
MAG has asked the MOD for technical details of the fusing mechanism to ascertain whether an Anti-Disturbance fuse is fitted. This has been denied to us under the title of 'classified information'. We have assurances that no Anti-Personnel mines will be procured with the new Shielder System but an Anti-Handling device will achieve that effect anyway.1377 I am only as good as the briefings that I get, but that is pretty unambiguous. I hope that the Minister will address that issue in a letter to me, as he could not do so verbally on the Floor of the Chamber.
§ Mr. Tony LloydSome moments ago, I invited the hon. Lady to intervene if she believed that I had not answered her questions. As she did not take up my offer at the time, I was rather surprised when she rose to say that I had not answered her questions.
It is important to establish several points exactly. The Defence Select Committee sent a list of detailed questions to the Ministry of Defence, and it received proper answers. The Mines Advisory Group received two long and detailed replies from the Ministry of Defence in answer to its questions. As the hon. Lady said, she is only as good as the briefings that she receives. However, if she had accepted the briefing offered by my hon. Friends, she would have received the information that is already in the public domain and which was provided to the Mines Advisory Group.
The Claymore system—this seems to be the last of the hon. Lady's preoccupations—is exempt because it is a command control system, and therefore is not detonated by physical contact. I shall undertake to examine the record and, if any questions have not been answered, I shall almost certainly write to the hon. Lady well before proceedings in another place. If the hon. Lady prefers to put down parliamentary questions, I or my hon. Friends will ensure that the information is available. The hon. Lady seems to be preoccupied with the private briefing that she has already rejected, but most of the information is already in the public domain.
§ Mr. ColvinI have a certain sympathy with the Minister, and I direct this question to him and the Foreign Secretary. Is it not about time that arms control matters were handled by the Ministry of Defence rather than by the Foreign Office, because the Minister is receiving all his answers this morning from the Secretary of State for Defence?
§ Mr. LloydI shall not explain my astonishment, but it may assist the Committee if I were to assure hon. Members that Ministers in the Defence team will participate in the Committee's proceedings. I assure hon. Members that they have been closely involved in the deliberations in the run-up to Britain's acceptance of the Ottawa convention and in the detailed work that has been done since then. The idea that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence should work separately on such issues would command little support elsewhere. With that, I trust that I have answered the questions. It has taken a little longer than I originally suggested. It has now taken about 18 minutes to answer the Opposition's detailed 1378 questions on all the technical aspects of these matters. I think that that shows that the detailed examination of the Bill that they want has now been achieved.
§ Mrs. GillanWhat about the matter of ministerial clearance for booby trapping the mines that I raised?
§ Mr. LloydI have already undertaken to ensure that all outstanding matters will be answered either by myself or by Defence Ministers. Those answers can be placed in the public domain. That is a perfectly reasonable answer to the hon. Lady, to the House of Commons and to the wider world. I trust that with that we can now make progress.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.