Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 7 January 2003)

§ The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

§ Baroness Rawlings
I shall be brief. The Bill confers a power to make further amendments to the 1991 Act should they be required to implement future amendments to the CFE Treaty. I raised this issue during our Second Reading debate. I wish to express my concern that any such amendments will not be addressed in primary legislation. Is this not yet another example of the Government removing business from the Floor of the House where, quite rightly, important matters can receive your Lordships' full attention and input?
As the CFE Treaty deals with sensitive and important issues, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, would explain why the Government have taken the decision to implement any future changes by order.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
When we discussed the issue at Second Reading, I indicated to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government had sent out a memorandum on this subject to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I also indicated that I wanted to listen carefully to the committee's views and in the light of those views to consider the best way forward.
894 The noble Baroness may know that the committee's view is that: In view of the limited nature of the power, and that fact that it will be subject to affirmative procedure, we consider that this level of delegation and control is appropriate". Therefore, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that this is an example of the Government removing business that should properly be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Perhaps I may point out to her that we have consulted, as we should have done, with the appropriate and expert committee on the matter and it believes that Her Majesty's Government are adopting the correct procedure.
I hope that in the light not only of my assurances but of those of the committee, she will feel able to withdraw her opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill.

§ Lord Blaker
As I was the Member who first raised the issue of the Explanatory Notes with which we had been provided before Second Reading, I want to thank the noble Baroness for providing additional Explanatory Notes. They were extremely helpful and entirely met our needs, which is why I did not take up her further offer of a meeting.
As regards the point raised by my noble friend, I am not entirely happy with the views of the Select Committee. I would have preferred not to have the provision relating to delegated legislation in the Bill in its current form. However, as the Select Committee has taken that view, it is difficult to argue too much against it. If it were going to give an affirmative answer to this part of the Bill, I would have preferred it to have limited that more narrowly. I would have preferred it to keep the answer expressly to the point, rather than making the wider comment that: There is in principle no reason why there should not be delegation of the function of implementing an international agreement". I believe that that comment is too wide, especially when we are talking about such an important, sensitive and dangerous subject as arms control. I hope that the committee does not pursue its practice of expressing its recommendations in a sense that is wider than what is necessary to meet the problems before it.
Furthermore, I would also like to support the necessity to make affirmative resolutions, which the committee did not do in its report. That is something of an oversight.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Given that the provision is subject to an affirmative resolution, we on these Benches support the Government. We believe that at a time when the international community and the international institutions are enforcing on Iraq the principle of inspection, it is important that we accept the principle of inspection of military installations in Britain. The CFE Treaty is of limited importance compared with some other arms control treaties, but it nevertheless enshrines the principle of inspection.
I recall previous debates in this House when Members on the Conservative Benches raised the question whether Britain should be subject to the same 895 level of inspection as some other states. We on these Benches would reinforce our view that international law must apply equally to all. On that basis, we support the Government and do not support the Conservative Front Bench.

§ Baroness Rawlings
I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. I support my noble friend Lord Blaker and his views. At the moment, I will not ask the view of the Committee but may return to the matter on Report.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
The issue of when to ratify the treaty was raised at Second Reading. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would limit the Government's scope on when we should ratify the treaty by providing that it should not happen until such time as all states parties have complied fully with the provisions of the CFE Treaty and the CFE Final Act.
The Government believe that the amendment takes a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Everyone in NATO agreed that swift fulfilment of the outstanding Istanbul commitments on Georgia and Moldova are necessary. The noble Baroness asked: why legislate now? It is because we want to be ready to ratify as soon as we are able. The fulfilment of those outstanding commitments will create the conditions for allies and other states parties to move forward on the ratification of the adapted treaty, which I believe is one that we in your Lordships' House all broadly support.
Let me be clear. The noble Baroness is right in saying that the United Kingdom is not ready to ratify the adapted treaty. However, I repeat what the then Secretary of State said in Istanbul: that we hope to 896 ratify the treaty early but that the time at which we do so will depend on the level of all parties' compliance within the agreed limits. That was reinforced by the NATO position agreed at Reykjavik on 14th and 15th May 2002. There, in the concluding statement, NATO agreed: We can envisage ratification of the adapted CFE Treaty only in the context of full compliance by all states parties with agreed treaty limits and consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE Final Act". The noble Baroness asked me to bring the Committee up to date with the state of play on the Istanbul commitment. Perhaps I may do so briefly. Russia has complied with its treaty limits on equipment in the flank; that is, in Chechnya. It has removed the treaty-limited equipment, which we discussed at Second Reading, from Moldova and Georgia. Furthermore, Russia has disbanded its base at Vaziani, Georgia.
However, although Russia has removed its TLE from the base at Abkhazia, legal transfer of the base to Georgia remains to be done, as does verification of the closure. Russia and Georgia have yet to agree a time-scale for the withdrawal of Russian stationed forces at the bases at Batumi and Akhalkalaki. Russian forces also remain in Transdniestria, Moldova, guarding the ammunition dump at Colbasna.
I hope that that briefly brings Members of the Committee up to date with the various states in all the territories where I know the noble Baroness has had concern. Perhaps I may point out to her that the principle on which Her Majesty's Government are operating is one of host nation consent. The views of Georgia and Moldova will be of key importance in deciding whether the conditions for ratification are in place.
The NATO statement was very carefully crafted. The context of this is enormously important, as I hope my remarks about Moldova and Georgia have made clear. We cannot envisage every eventuality at this stage. We cannot know how our allies and other cosignatories may wish to deal with the outstanding issues I have outlined to the Committee. However, the principles on which we are operating are clear. It would be unreasonable to put my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary into a straitjacket on this issue—a straitjacket in which I hope none of the other Foreign Secretaries with whom my right honourable friend is dealing would find themselves—and to try, in a sense, to second guess the carefully crafted and negotiated wording in the NATO statement.
Were the amendment to be passed, it could potentially put the UK in the position of preventing the entry into force of the adapted CFE Treaty if we were not able to ratify at a point where negotiations led us to believe that ratification was the right position to take.
I understand the noble Baroness's misgivings. While the wording she has brought forward looks similar to the NATO wording it is not the same. The NATO wording stresses the importance of the context of the negotiations and we believe that it is enormously 897 important that my right honourable friend has the ability to negotiate on these issues in the same way as his other colleagues.

§ Baroness Rawlings
I thank the noble Baroness for that detailed answer and congratulate her on her mastery of those very difficult names. We do not want to put the Foreign Secretary into a straitjacket or to delay ratification. However, we are still worried about the situation in Moldova and Georgia and will come back to this issue on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.