HC Deb 18 September 2003 vol 410 cc1107-22

[Relevant document: Third Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2002–03, Arms Control and Disarmament Inspections Bill (HC 321), and the Government response thereto, Second Special Report from the Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 754.]

Order for Second Reading read.

2.28 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill concerns the adapted version of the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty—the CFE treaty—signed in Paris on 19 November 1990. The agreement on adaptation of the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe, known more familiarly as the adapted CFE treaty, was signed by all states parties to the CFE treaty at Istanbul on 19 November 1999.

The CFE treaty limits the holdings of five categories of heavy weapons—tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters—by the 30 member states of NATO and the former Warsaw pact. It applies to the land territory of states parties in Europe. The treaty includes an important transparency and verification regime. It is seen as a cornerstone of European security and has resulted in the destruction of more than 50,000 heavy weapons in Europe. However, the treaty was negotiated at the end of the cold war and needed adaptation to reflect the break-up of the Warsaw pact and NATO enlargement.

The adapted CFE treaty was therefore negotiated and signed by states parties to the CFE treaty at Istanbul in 1999. It replaces the old Warsaw pact-NATO bloc-to-bloc system with national and territorial ceilings for heavy weapons. The adapted CFE treaty provides for greater transparency than the present CFE treaty through a substantially enhanced system of information provision. In particular, it increases the amount of military information that each of the 30 states parties to the treaty exchanges, and enhances the regime of inspection. The adapted CFE treaty includes provisions for new European states to join, and also has an enhanced inspection regime, including a new type of inspection that could involve a large area and would not necessarily be limited to military bases. Together with the fact that some parts of military sites are increasingly owned and operated by private companies, that means that we need additional legislation to allow access to non-Ministry of Defence-owned property.

The main provisions of this short, technical Bill amend the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991 to provide for the additional rights of entry to private land that are required to implement the additional inspection requirements of the protocol on inspection in the agreement on adaptation. On 3 February, the Secretary of State signed a memorandum confirming that the Bill's provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights. That was subsequently confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

The Bill also confers a power on Her Majesty to make further amendments to the 1991 Act relating to inspections by Order in Council, should they be needed to implement future amendments to the CFE treaty relating to inspections. During the Bill's passage through the House of Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee agreed that that level of delegation and control was appropriate. The Bill thus provides the legislation necessary for the UK to ratify the adapted CFE treaty quickly when the time is right. While the UK is committed to the treaty's earliest possible entry into force, our position and that of our NATO allies remains that ratification can only be envisaged in the context of full compliance by all states parties with agreed treaty limits, consistent with commitments in the CFE Final Act. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, those commitments are those agreed between Russia, Georgia and Moldova on the closure of Russian bases and the withdrawal of Russian troops and equipment from the territory of the other two states, which have not yet been fulfilled. We and other NATO allies continue to urge Russia to work with Georgia and Moldova to resolve the outstanding issues on the basis of the principle of host nation consent.

The Secretary of State will not bring the Bill into force in accordance with clause 3 until the Government are ready to ratify the agreement on adaptation. When the Secretary of State decides that the time is right to bring the Bill into force in accordance with clause 3, the Government are content to notify the House at least 21 days before their intention to proceed to ratification. I hope that the House will be able to support the Bill.

2.33 pm
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)

The official Opposition certainly welcome the Bill's objective, which reflects the desire of the whole House and the country for a safer world with fewer armaments, particularly those that no longer serve any strategic purpose. Having said that, I am a little surprised by the short time that the Minister took to introduce the Bill. Good as it is, it includes a number of things that stretch the official Opposition's good will a little and the charity of my colleagues a good long way. I hope that when the Minister responds to what is likely to be a short debate he will be able to demonstrate that our charity is not misplaced by giving us more specific assurances on a number of points than he provided in his opening remarks.

Sadly, I have a strange feeling that our debate—perhaps given our limited presence in the House, colloquium would be a more appropriate phrase—will not be leading the news broadcasts later. That is a shame, because the treaty that we are effectively adapting today has by any standards been a conspicuous success and something that we should celebrate. It has played a major part in building the peace and security of our continent, which we should never take for granted. The many violent events that have convulsed Europe and cost millions of lives in the last century, most recently in the Balkans, should remind us that peace is not the natural order of our continent. One of our prime duties in the House is to work for the greater security of our constituents, and today we are considering a matter of great importance to that security.

This debate is inherently above party politics and, as was evident in the debates in the other place to which the Minister referred, there is a lot of common ground to be found. However, we will seek clarification of a number of points, and I am confident that the Minister, with his customary good humour and diligence, will be able to provide that. It is right to put on record the House's gratitude to the Select Committee on Defence for its excellent third report for the 2002–03 Session on the Bill. It was published in April, and is an excellent piece of pre-legislative scrutiny that genuinely focuses and informs our debate today. I am sure that, like me, the Minister is a strong believer in pre-legislative scrutiny, especially on technical matters such as the Bill, where some calm deliberation, ahead of the often more partisan nature of the processes involved in the Bill's passage through the House and Committee, can assist hon. Members. Such is the Defence Committee's third report, and I commend it to anyone wishing to understand the issues raised by the Bill.

I should also like to express my gratitude in preparing for this debate to the Library, for its excellent research paper. I do not know how often this has been done in the past by the Library or the Government, but the text of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991, as amended by the Bill, is included in an extremely helpful appendix to the research document. The Government might consider incorporating such amended measures in explanatory notes to technical Bills in future. Frankly, the Bill as it stands does not make a great deal of sense. That is not a criticism of the parliamentary draftsman or the Government—the changes that the Bill will bring into effect are difficult to understand. The Library's approach of crossing out the bits in the 1991 Act that we are repealing and deleting is helpful, and assisted my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) and I as we prepared for this debate. The Library therefore deserves special thanks.

The Minister rightly put the Bill in context, and explained how the original treaty placed limits on the numbers of combat aircraft, tanks, attack helicopters, armoured vehicles and so on. In fact, he rather undersold the case for the treaty which, I think I am right in saying, is probably the most comprehensive arms control ever agreed in history. It is less inherently fascinating than the discussion about nuclear weapons that tended to dominate the news headlines at the time, but the fact is that this vital treaty has provided a means of establishing a military balance in Europe.

First and foremost, it was an arms reduction treaty, which demanded that the contracting parties reduce their heavy weaponry and equipment by 50,000 items—a not insubstantial figure by any reckoning. Just as importantly, as the Minister emphasised, it was a conflict prevention treaty aimed at increasing transparency, building confidence, and reducing tension. It did that by preventing provocative and destabilising concentrations of military forces, and still does its work today, even unadapted, as it remains in force, pending the entry into force of the agreement on adaptation.

The fact such a treaty could be agreed reflected the mood of increased co-operation and good will between the two blocs towards the end of the cold war. Verification of compliance was achieved by inspections and the treaty's provisions were incorporated in UK law by the 1991 Act. The second CFE review conference was held in Vienna in May to June 2001, and made the following observations on implementation: The implementation of the Treaty since its entry into force in 1992 has brought positive results including significantly reduced holdings of Treaty-limited equipment and increased confidence through transparency and predictability involving conventional armed forces. The States Parties welcomed the impressive progress that had been made in implementing the Treaty, including the reduction of more than 59,000 pieces of conventional armaments and equipment, the exchange of about 6,000 notifications per year in addition to annual exchanges of information and the conduct of more than 3,300 on-site inspections and observation visits to verify compliance with the provisions of the Treaty and its associated documents. With regard to the Concluding Act on Personnel Strength, the States Parties noted with satisfaction that the personnel strength of conventional armed forces in the area of application had been reduced significantly. That is all very good news, but not everything was perfect. The conference also concluded that in general the CFE Treaty was operating and being implemented in a satisfactory manner. However, there were a number of implementation issues requiring further consideration and resolution in the Joint Consultative Group. The States Parties noted"— I am still quoting from the conclusions— that certain numerical limitations established by the Treaty were being exceeded. The States Parties were informed that the excess, which had been declared to be of a temporary nature, had been decreased. They expect this was in 2001— that the remaining excess will be eliminated as soon as it is possible. They reaffirmed the importance of transparency with regard to the elimination of any excesses over CFE Treaty limits. In this context, they reiterated their commitment to full and continued implementation of the Treaty and its associated documents and their adherence to its numerical limitations. Thus, there were reservations.

The rapid changes that followed the end of the cold war in 1990 could not have been envisaged at the time the treaty was originally agreed. We now know that those were of sweeping significance. I was one of the woodpeckers who attacked the Berlin wall in early 1990 with a chisel which, I remember, was, ironically., manufactured in the People's Republic of China. Little did we know what we had begun. The Warsaw pact collapsed, leaving only NATO as the military pact operating in Europe, and the USA as the single remaining superpower, which made necessary a great re-adjustment of strategic priorities and strategic thinking around the globe.

With reference to the Bill, the most important consequence of the end of the cold war was the disintegration of the USSR and the emergence of a host of new states—Czechoslovakia became the Czech and Slovak Republics, and countries such as the Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Armenia emerged as international players in their own right. Now a total of 30 nations are parties to the treaty.

As I am sure the Minister will agree, these changes made the control and limitation of conventional weapons in Europe no less important. Indeed, in some cases it has become more so, as out-of-area or former Soviet equipment needs to be accounted for more closely. In 1999, as the Minister told us, the agreement of adaptation was signed in Istanbul, but the 1990 treaty remains valid and takes account of the demise of the blocs, setting ceilings on a national basis, rather than a bloc basis.

One learns something all the time in the House, and I was intrigued by the table in the Library document, which sets out the national ceilings under the adaptation agreement. It is perhaps no surprise to discover that the UK has, under the national ceilings, an allowance of 843 battle tanks, 3,017 armoured combat vehicles, 583 pieces of artillery, 855 combat aircraft and 350 attack helicopters. France has rather more battle tanks than we do, at 1,226, but Armenia boasts 220 battle tanks and 220 armoured combat vehicles. To my surprise, neither Luxembourg nor Iceland boasts any. They have nul points in every category—no battle tanks, no armoured combat vehicles, no pieces of artillery and no combat aircraft.

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.

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 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 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.

Mr. MacShane

indicated dissent.

Mr. Luff

I am delighted that the Minister has indicated dissent, as Hansard will say. There is clearly a wholehearted commitment to allow 21 days and I am grateful for that assurance.

I am still looking for one further reassurance in respect of how the Government will treat the 21 days. For example, I trust that they will not announce their decision to ratify on the first day of the Christmas recess, reducing from 21 to seven days the effective notice period for the House. As well as embracing the letter of Ponsonby, I hope that the Government will be content to embrace his spirit and give us 21 parliamentary days—not necessarily sitting days, but 21 days during a full sitting period, or three full weeks—so that proper consideration can be given to the matter.

The Opposition believe that this is an important Bill, despite its being so concise. It reflects important international developments and also makes an important contribution to conflict prevention by reducing the number of weapons that could be deployed in Europe. It is necessary for the implementation of the 1999 agreement and for the treaty's ability to keep pace with developments. I am pleased that it has finally reached us. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist with the clarifications for which I have asked, but subject to reassurances from him, we certainly look forward to the Bill completing its passage.

2.55 pm
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

May I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in expressing surprise that it has taken quite so long for such a modest Bill to come to this end of the building from another place, considering the period that has now elapsed since it completed its stages there? None the less, it is an important measure and it is a shame that we can muster so few hon. Members in the Chamber to hear this debate and participate in it. We can only hope that in the highways and byways of Brent, to pick a place at random, people are discussing the issues as seriously as they should be.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the treaty is very important. The principle of inspections and verification is important to arms control. As my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said last November in another place, the Bill represents a modest but useful extension of the treaty.

The original treaty has been very valuable. When we reflect on the sweeping changes that have occurred since it was passed in the international community and Europe in particular, we should perhaps accord it more credit for that stability than we are in danger of doing. Sometimes, I believe that we in this country and this House are in danger of forgetting the cold war and the effect that it had for a long time on the area covered by the treaty, from the Atlantic to the Urals. I am afraid that I cannot claim credit for physically helping to bring clown the Berlin wall, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire did, and neither do I have the Minister's credentials in promoting the cause of democracy in places such as Poland and elsewhere in what is now central Europe. However, for those of my generation—if I may be so cheeky—it was an important development when the cold war and all the dangers that it posed was put safely in a new context. The treaty has been important in that regard. Our threats assessments tend nowadays to be slightly more focused on international terrorism, but as the hon. Gentleman said, Europe's tortured history demands that we should, in a more traditional context, continue to take issues of peace and security seriously.

In recent months, we have debated long and hard in this Chamber the enlargement of the European Union. The fact that so many of the countries that were originally parties to the treaty from the other side, if I may put it that way, are now to join us in the enlarged European Union is a great sign of progress. As that political situation has changed, the treaty should be amended to catch up with modern reality.

I do not want to repeat many of the valuable remarks that have already been made and highlight issues of disarmament that have been mentioned. I wish simply to ask the Minister for a couple of clarifications. One of the founding principles of arms control that underpins the treaty is mutual inspection. Last November, my noble Friend Lord Wallace asked Baroness Symons whether the treaty applied to United States bases in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the treaty area. For whatever reason, the Baroness was unable or unwilling to respond to that point; perhaps the Minister would do us the courtesy of plugging that gap in our understanding.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned Qinetiq. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but I hope that he was not suggesting that it should get special treatment as a private institution. Given its unusual hybrid status, I understand that it may fear unreasonable intrusions, but it is not surprising that some focus should fall upon it. Will the Minister clarify how it fits into the process?

I echo hon. Members' concerns about ongoing noncompliance with existing treaty obligations, particularly by Russia—although I accept that the adaptation to the treaty recognised Russia's concerns about its border security in areas such as Georgia and Moldova. The Minister said that we continue to urge the Russians to comply. Will he tell us what progress is being made and how soon we may hope to find ourselves in the happy position of ratifying the treaty?

I reinforce what was said about the importance of Parliament having the opportunity to contribute to the debate once the Government have decided that they should ratify the treaty. To borrow the elegant phrase used by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the statutory instrument approach is inadvisable, but not objectionable. Liberal Democrat Members—perhaps with more consistency, as we have been on this side of the House for longer than Labour or Conservative Members—do not like the principle at all. We must get a specific assurance from the Minister that it is specifically linked to this treaty and adaptation.

I have no desire to detain the House any further than has been necessary. Liberal Democrat Members believe that this is an important treaty that is sometimes not given enough credit for its contribution to our peace and security. In that spirit, we wish to see the Bill passed.

3.2 pm

Mr. Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness)

Although the Bill is largely technical, and is certainly short, this has been an interesting and instructive debate. The issues addressed by the Bill are much broader than its specifics would suggest. It goes to the heart of the changes to the geopolitical landscape that have taken place over the past decade and a half and of the wider debate on arms controls and effective measures to help conflict prevention.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said in his detailed and articulate speech, the world in which we live today has changed dramatically from that of 1990. It is therefore right that in 1999 the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe was updated to reflect that fact. As my hon. Friend said, that has led to a reduction of 59,000 conventional armaments and some 3,300 inspections and visits. The new treaty recognises that the old blocs of the cold war are no longer so relevant. The Warsaw pact has gone, and NATO has assumed a more encompassing role, particularly in view of its planned enlargement to include former Warsaw pact countries. The 1999 treaty reflects that with the replacement of equipment ceilings for blocs with ceilings per state. I welcome that recognition that the bloc mentality is over, but I cannot but be puzzled that the Government, particularly the Minister, are still determined to forge the European Union into another bloc through the integrationist constitution.

I will not reiterate in detail the points made so ably by my hon. Friend, especially in relation to the need for technical changes to the inspections and verifications procedures. I would, however, like to evaluate what might be termed the Russian dimension, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). That is linked in many ways to ratification timings, and revolves around the principle of the free consent of host states to the deployment of foreign military equipment. Conservative Members have concerns about the Russian position in Moldova and Georgia, despite a Russian commitment to withdraw its forces from those countries by the end of 2002. In September 2002, President Putin told the United Nations Secretary-General that unless the Georgian leadership takes practical action to liquidate terrorists, and if bandit raids continue to originate from its territory, Russia… shall take adequate measures to resist the terrorist threat". That does not suggest that as recently as this time last year President Putin envisaged that the conditions would be right for Russia to withdraw her troops. Although I appreciate that the situation in Abkhazia means that relations between Russia and Georgia remain tense, I am aware that some progress has none the less been made in reducing treaty-limited equipment levels to the required amount. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us what progress has since been made and whether he is satisfied with efforts to resolve these issues.

Does the Minister have any idea when a UK inspection team might be able to visit the Gadauta base to verify whether it has been fully transferred from Russian control, as planned? Similarly, separatist disputes in Moldova complicate the situation there. That means that the estimated date for Russian withdrawal is now the end of 2003—a year later than planned—and it appears that even that time scale may have to be further extended. I understand that the mechanics of withdrawal are complex, especially as the aptly named separatist leader, Mr. Smirnov, controls the railways. Will the Minister update the House on any progress in that direction, given that it is now eight months since these matters were debated in the other place?

Contained within the Russian dimension is the question of armament allocation. The terms of the original treaty applied to the Russian army and land forces, but a loophole appeared to the effect that, for example, the transfer of motorised regiments to the navy could effectively remove them from inclusion in the matériels counted towards their ceilings. Does that opportunity still exist; or have changes since the original treaty and the new national ceilings effectively encompassed all matériel, regardless of the service to which it is attached?

I want to highlight a few other areas that were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and by my noble Friend in the other place, but still require updating and clarification from the Minister. Conservative Members have concerns about the powers that the Bill grants the Government to enact future changes to the treaty by statutory instrument. Baroness Symons offered a reassurance that such amendments would be subject to affirmative resolution. However, given that since the original treaty's enactment in UK law in 1991 it has needed to be amended in Parliament only very infrequently since, primary legislation allowing proper scrutiny once every 12 years or so does not represent an intolerable burden on the time of this House and is not something to which the Government should object. I am also concerned that such a procedure for amending treaties, although we will not oppose it in the Lobby on this occasion, should not be viewed as a precedent for amending other treaties.

I am uneasy about why this Bill is coming before us now. It has taken eight months to arrive, yet there appears to be no indication of the time scale that the Government are contemplating for ratification. I am concerned to discover that so far only Belarus and Ukraine have ratified the adaptation agreement agreed in 1999—and no NATO state has proceeded to ratification—although for most state parties the benefits of ratification would outweigh those of waiting for a resolution of the Georgian and Moldovan disputes. Are the Government determined to wait until that is resolved, despite its impact upon ratification timetables?

In addition to the Government's pledge that the matter will be laid before the House for 21 days before ratification, will the Minister tell us when he envisages ratification taking place, given that four years have already passed since the conclusion of the agreement in Istanbul? My understanding of the Bill's contents is that hon. Members are being asked to provide the Foreign Secretary with ratification powers that may last and be unused for years. The geopolitical landscape may have changed by the time the Foreign Secretary ratifies. Surely it is right for the House to have the ability to judge and deliberate on those matters in context when ratification occurs.

Does the agreement mean that our bases and facilities in Gibraltar and/or Cyprus will be subject to inspection by other parties to the treaty? Will the Minister clarify the interaction of territorial ceilings? Although I note that in most cases the two ceilings are the same, am I correct that equipment in areas that are not covered by the territorial terms of the agreement, for example, the Russian territory beyond the Urals, would remain covered by that country's national ceilings?

The debate has been important. Despite the technical nature of the Bill's provisions, the broader issues that are pertinent to the measure's background are significant foreign and defence policy questions. I am eager to listen to the Minister's response and clarification of important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and I have raised. In the expectation that the Minister will offer adequate assurances, we are happy to support the important Bill and endorse the contribution of the 1990 and 1999 agreements to making a Europe a safer place.

3.11 pm
Mr. MaeShane

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. I congratulate hon. Members on solid contributions and the excellent work on the Bill. It is right to note that 59,000 major pieces of weaponry have been destroyed under the agreements. We may all take some credit for that.

Whenever the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) debates any matter with me, he makes an elegant, eloquent and erudite speech. We learned that he was a woodpecker, pecking at the Berlin wall. His nickname in the House should be "Woody" from now on. However, his speech was not wooden.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) managed to drag the Conservative party's European Union obsessions into the debate. I congratulate him on that; it is to his credit. The more the Conservative party shows its obsession and fanatical dislike of Europe, the happier I—and, I believe, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore)—will be. If the voters of Brent, East are listening to the debate, they will doubtless take account of the Conservative party's obsession with getting Britain out of Europe when they cast their votes. [Interruption.] I did not want to talk about such matters, but I have to reply to the debate.

Let us revert to serious points. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was right to praise the work of the Select Committee on Defence. The document that it produced is good and the Committee is one of the House's best Select Committees. He was also right to draw attention to the excellent work of the international department of the Library. It does not receive the credit that its work merits. In my nine years in the House, I have found that the ladies and gentlemen who work there produce good documents and individual briefings of excellent quality for hon. Members. One great use is being able to examine documents side by side, for example, a treaty and the changes to it. That is a good way in which to explain matters to hon. Members and the public.

Several important questions have been asked, and I shall try to deal with them. If I fail to deal with any points that hon. Members have made, I hope that they will write to me. I simply want cross-party consensus on the Bill. The number of inspections was referred to. The United Kingdom currently has to undertake 18 and the number will increase to 24 if the new treaty is ratified. That is a reasonable number. The majority are in the United Kingdom and some are at our bases in Germany.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked about Qinetiq, which is an important private contractor for defence activity in the United Kingdom. Most of it managers come from the Ministry of Defence and they understand the obligations that are laid on not only this but other Governments. They accept that the inspection regime will have to be maintained. However, the number of inspections is not onerous and we have no evidence that they will impose a new business burden on the company.

We are confident that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Article 1 of protocol 1 of the convention deals with protecting the right to property. However, the right is not unlimited and we do not believe that it will pose any difficulties to Qinetiq or other private companies.

I was asked why we were taking time to ratify. The answer is simple and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made it clear. The common position of all NATO member states is that we will ratify when we are satisfied that the other principal European states—of course, we mean Russia—are complying with the treaty's obligations. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the problems in Moldova and Georgia.

Inspection in Georgia has had to be put back until next year because Russia exercised its state's right to Georgian inspection. I raised the position of Moldova in Kiev on a visit to the Ukrainian Government on Sunday and Monday. We are worried about the position in Transnistria and the activities of Mr. Smirnov, including his failure to allow the proper dismantling of the Russian arms that are stored there. That is a cause of anxiety to Ukrainian and Moldovan Governments as well as to us and the Russian authorities. A region of Europe is under the control of a certain gentleman who is not prepared to operate by the rules of the treaty. That is why the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is active there. As the Minister responsible for the OSCE's work, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are seized of the position.

We have to discuss ratification with our partners. We want full NATO ratification—Britain should not go it alone. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ponsonby rules will be fulfilled. Indeed, we go further because we are not considering sneaking ratification through. The treaty is important and Parliament, not only the House of Commons, should consider it. The advantage of the adapted treaty is that new states can join. As the Balkan states move closer to membership of the European Union or NATO, we hope that they will be ready to join. The treaty allows for that.

The United States is a party to the treaty and I shall write to confirm whether US facilities in the United Kingdom are declared sites under its terms. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale asked about that.

A point was made about the way in which to effect the treaty once it is ratified. Statutory instruments will be used to allow small, technical rules that apply to inspection regimes in the United Kingdom to be taken forward. With all due respect, I do not think that many hon. Members believe that primary legislation would be needed each time such changes were required.

Hon. Members were quite right, however, to draw attention to the increasing corpus of international law by which we are all now bound, and to the need for it to be properly considered by the House. In terms of legislation in this House, however, let us remember that we are talking about any aspect of a treaty that has been signed and ratified being transposed into domestic law. It is therefore reasonable for the Government to decide whether that should be done through primary legislation or statutory instruments.

Mr. Luff

The Minister's words have not given us quite the comfort that we were looking for on this matter. Would the use of statutory instruments be exceptional? Would the presumption be that they would not be used in treaty change legislation?

Mr. MacShane

I was not in the House during the great Maastricht debates, which are the most famous example of primary legislation carrying into effect a significant international treaty. I would find it hard to envisage the House accepting significant changes in domestic law derived from treaty obligations if they had not been properly debated in the House, but I am unable definitively to say what this or any future Government's position would be on international treaties when they are transposed into domestic law, whether by primary or secondary legislation.

I was asked about the Baltic states. As I have said, the new treaty allows new states to join, and the Baltic states are on the path to becoming NATO members. I assume that they will join other NATO members in examining ratification as and when we are satisfied that all parties to the original treaty—and now the adapted treaty—are fulfilling all its obligations.

I hope that that deals with most of the points that have been raised, but if any hon. Member requires further clarification, I shall be happy to write to them. The Bill will enable the UK to ratify the adapted CFE treaty quickly at the appropriate time. Once the adapted treaty has been ratified by all states and parties and comes into force, other states in the area of application will be able to join, thus extending the scope for co-operation on arms control throughout Europe and enhancing security and stability in the region as a whole.

The Bill is a necessary step in enabling the UK to ratify the adapted CFE treaty, but I want to assure hon. Members that legislation will not be brought into force until the time is right to do so—that is, when all states and parties have complied fully with agreed treaty limits consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE final Act. Again, I want to assure the House on the matter of the full 21 days. I do not want to give an absolute cast-iron guarantee, because I do not know where I shall be when the treaty comes for ratification. I do not know how many days might be included in a Christmas break or other break, but there is no evidence that this—or any previous or future—Government would seek to smuggle a treaty through. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench would make jolly sure that that would not happen.

I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised in the debate. I thank all the hon. Members for their constructive questions, which have been important in clarifying matters. I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Forward to