Orders of the Day — Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 10 April 2000.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The Bill will provide the Government with the necessary powers to implement a strengthened nuclear safeguards system in the United Kingdom by bringing into effect an additional protocol to our existing nuclear safeguards agreement with the European Atomic Energy Community and the International Atomic Energy Agency. That will fulfil the UK's commitment to help to strengthen the effectiveness of the international system for detecting clandestine nuclear activities in non-nuclear weapons states. May I explain a little of the background to the Bill? After the Gulf war, Iraq was found to have been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme, even though it had in force a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the agency. In response to that discovery, the international community agreed that there was a need to strengthen the international nuclear safeguards system by giving the agency additional information and rights of access to nuclear facilities and to other relevant locations. States throughout the world are negotiating and signing legally binding additional protocols with the agency to provide it with that information and with those rights. To date, additional protocols for 48 states have been signed. Eight have entered into force. Like most states, the UK needs to put legislation in place to ensure that we can fulfil our obligations under our additional protocol. The UK additional protocol was signed in Vienna on 22 September 1998, along with the additional protocols for France and for the 13 non-nuclear weapons state members of the European Union. Our additional protocol requires the UK to provide information to the agency about nuclear and nuclear-related activities carried out for, or with, non-nuclear weapons states.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

If it is a matter of any importance at all, how can the Minister explain the considerable time lapse between the signing in September 1998 and the introduction of the Bill now, well into 2000?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The right hon. Gentleman, whose defence of liberty I always admire, as he knows, prevented the Bill when it was in another form—a private Member's Bill—from being brought forward perfectly properly under the rules of the House. I am now attempting to put matters right. The information that we provide, along with that gathered from other states, will enable the agency to draw up a comprehensive picture of nuclear activity in non-nuclear weapons states. That will enhance the agency's ability to detect signs of suspicious activity that may be indicative of clandestine nuclear programmes and to act as a strong deterrent to the development of such programmes.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister will understand that the Bill is of great concern to the House, albeit not to Labour Members, all of whom seem to have disappeared to the Tea Room. He is ensuring, rightly, that the UK will comply with the agency. However, what about countries such as North Korea or Iraq? How many other rogue states are there around the world that have nuclear capability, but are refusing to sign the protocol?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, I am glad to say that I am the elected Member for Pontypridd, not for Seoul or for any other part of the world, and that I cannot answer for them. We need the Bill's legal powers to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the new additional protocol. The Bill's core elements can be found in clauses 2 and 5. The first element—clause 2—is required because much of the information that the additional protocol requires the United Kingdom to pass to the agency will not originate with the Government. Therefore, the clause enables people to give relevant information to the Secretary of State, unrestricted by any obligation of confidentiality or limit on disclosure that would otherwise inhibit them from doing so, although any such obligations and limits will still apply for other purposes. It is anticipated that the great majority of the information required by the agency from the United Kingdom will be given to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry voluntarily by those who have it.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Although I appreciate that the Minister is the hon. Member for Pontypridd, rather than for Seoul, nevertheless he is today moving the Second Reading of a Bill that would implement an international protocol to an internationally agreed nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Surely he could tell the House how many other countries, to date, have signed up to the additional protocol. I am sure that that is information that the Foreign Office is bound to supply.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has come into the Chamber a little late. As I said, 48 states have signed up to the protocol and four have enacted it. We want to be the next in line. In the event that a person is unwilling to provide information that the Government need to fulfil a United Kingdom obligation under the additional protocol, there obviously has to be a means of compelling that person to do so. Therefore, clause 2 also enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice on someone, with a criminal sanction for non-compliance, requiring him or her to give relevant information. Clause 5 is the Bill's second core element. The clause gives inspectors designated by the agency a right to enter certain locations in accordance with the additional protocol and to conduct in those places specific activities that the additional protocol requires to be permitted. Those activities are essentially designed to check information that we and other countries have provided to the agency. Although, we would usually expect access by agency inspectors to be granted on a voluntarily basis, the Bill makes it a criminal offence to obstruct inspectors in performing their functions or to interfere with anything placed on land by an inspector in the course of those functions. It is envisaged that visits from agency inspectors under clause 5 will occur mostly at the sites of the major nuclear companies. All those companies have expressed their support for the new measures. The precise activities that may be conducted by the agency inspectors under clause 5 will depend largely on the location in question and the reason for the access.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I shall certainly give way in a moment. The activities that may be performed include, for example, visual observation, collection of environmental samples, use of radiation detection and measuring devices, and, of course, examination of records.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister has said that the proprietors or operators of what he has called nuclear sites have said that they are content with the provisions of the Bill and the protocol. However, does he accept that the wide powers given, particularly those in clause 5, go much further than that, and that he therefore cannot make any presumption about a general consent or relaxation about the wide powers in the Bill? What measures have the Government taken to assess, outside the rather narrow nuclear fraternity, opinion on the powers given in the Bill?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We have made our intentions abundantly clear for a long time. We have not heard of any serious worries from any quarter. I shall try to deal with some of the problems that I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is keen to highlight.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman's oration. I regret only that he has such a poor audience on the Labour Benches. Has he been overwhelmed by support from outside bodies for the apartheid that the Bill creates between authorised officers of the British Government, who have to satisfy a justice of the peace before they can invade private property, and international agencies, who have a fiat to trample over the private property of United Kingdom citizens with no justification or explanation?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No. Clause 5, Madam Speaker, gives effect to one of the key obligations under the protocol. It is a fundamental aspect of the protocol that, if a state has provided information to the agency—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should have said Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a problem with advancing age. Agency inspectors must have a right of access to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the information provided, subject only to the conditions provided for in the additional protocol. The remaining clauses are secondary to clauses 2 and 5. I shall outline them briefly so that hon. Members understand the overall structure of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I thank the Minister for his confirmation a moment ago that he had not been overwhelmed by support for the apartheid that the Bill creates. Has he been overwhelmed by strong opposition to the authoritarian character of his proposals?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No. Clause 3 is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to identify those from whom he requires information. It enables him to make regulations requiring persons—that includes companies and other bodies, such as universities, as well as individuals—to inform him if they carry out certain types of activity or have certain information that he may need. Clause 4 enables an officer authorised by the Secretary of State, having obtained a warrant from a justice of the peace—I know that hon. Members are concerned about this—to enter any premises in the United Kingdom to search for information that has been required by the Secretary of State in a notice under clause 2, but that the person served with the notice has failed or refused to provide. That is envisaged as a last resort power, but it is needed because a power to prosecute does not guarantee that the necessary information will be provided. The clause also covers entry when documents or other things containing information needed by the Secretary of State are at risk of being destroyed, altered or disposed of, so preventing the Secretary of State from obtaining information.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am doing my best to keep up on this technical matter. The Minister said that the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to ask for information, but if the company concerned will not tell him, how on earth does he know what to ask for?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is a good point. Hon. Members should not look smug. Looking smug and grunting would not have sorted out the problem of arms to Iraq, still less the manufacture of nuclear triggers and other components that could put the lives of a great many people, including British soldiers, under threat.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that somebody had been grunting. Could you advise me who it was?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I did not hear anybody grunting.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

This is a very old building. I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 6 protects information obtained under the Bill or the additional protocol. It prohibits the disclosure of certain types of such information except for certain purposes or in certain circumstances, and sets out penalties for disclosure in breach of those limits. The clause is aimed primarily at civil servants who deal with the information to be passed to the agency or who accompany agency inspectors on visits.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The Minister has moved on rather faster than I expected. I am still thinking about clause 5. Will he name any public bodies outside the nuclear industry that support the extraordinary powers given to an extra-national body to enter the private property of a British citizen without any appeal mechanism?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We have received no objections from any manufacturing company or private individual. There was an extensive debate on the matter in another place, and their Lordships were satisfied with the assurances that they were given and with the text of the Bill. Clause 7 makes it an offence knowingly or recklessly to give false or misleading information under the Bill. Clause 8—

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

How would clause 7 affect British Nuclear Fuels Ltd?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am here to talk about the work that goes on within Britain in various manufacturing plants, which is done in co-operation with a non-nuclear weapon state. I am not aware that British Nuclear Fuels is involved in any such deal. It would seem that that issue is outside the remit of the Bill. Clause 8 provides persons authorised by the Secretary of State, having obtained a warrant from a justice of the peace, with the power to search premises for evidence of an offence under the Bill. Clause 9 sets out the penalties for failing to comply with various provisions of the Bill or interfering with things done under the Bill. Generally, such offences are to be punishable in a magistrates court by a fine up to the statutory maximum, which is £5,000, or after a jury trial by an unlimited fine. However, knowingly or recklessly giving false information under the Bill is to be punishable in the magistrates court by a fine of up to the statutory maximum or, after a jury trial, by an unlimited fine or up to two year's imprisonment, or both. Clause 9 deals also with a case where a corporate body or a Scottish partnership is found to have committed an offence under the Bill and allows persons of authority in the body, or partners, to be charged if they were involved in the commission of the offence. The remaining clauses set out how a notice under the Act may be served; amend the Act, implementing the original safeguards agreement of 1976 to bring it in line with the Bill and with corresponding provisions of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996; and deal with commencement, territorial extent and the short title. I fully expect those who are affected by the new measures to co-operate with them voluntarily. Indeed, we are not aware of any prosecutions under the Act implementing the original safeguards agreement of 1976 and the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978. Those concerned have always acted responsibly and co-operated with the Department voluntarily.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

In essence, the purpose of the Bill is to give powers to the International Atomic Energy Agency to enter premises without a warrant from a justice of the peace so that the IAEA will have the same powers in the rogue states such as North Korea and Iraq. Is it not odd that those states are not signatories to the additional protocol? We are implementing it in the expectation and hope that those countries will sign it and that its powers will be implemented in those states. What progress has been made in persuading those countries to sign the protocol?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, this has always been an international effort. If we do not sign the protocol, how can we expect rogue countries to do so? That is complete nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Conservative party is opposed to these agreements, he should tell us. In the meantime—I very much look forward to his speech—the Government will try to set a good example by signing up to additional protocols.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Opposition support these measures and give the Government and the agency the benefit of the doubt on the issue. However, I asked the Minister for information to help the House in scrutinising the Bill. Where are we internationally in terms of persuading those countries to sign the protocol? The Minister should know, because he is introducing the Bill.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

As I have said, many countries have already signed up and the agenda will be taken further by a conference on 24 April. We are making progress, but it is important that this country sets a good example.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No, I shall try to finish now. Without a mechanism for compelling people to provide the relevant information to the Government, and for ensuring a right of access for agency inspectors, we could not guarantee compliance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the additional protocols, in the—albeit unlikely—event that someone was not prepared to co-operate voluntarily. As I have said, we do not so far have an example of someone refusing to co-operate. It is also worth emphasising that the burden on business of the new measures is minimal. [Interruption.] A regulatory impact assessment prepared by my Department showed that the estimated cost for businesses likely to be affected by the new safeguards measure would be around £150,000 in the first year. That is minimal compared with the cost of existing safeguard measures, which is more than £10 million a year for BNFL alone. The cost to small businesses involved in manufacturing or consultancy work which would be caught by the proposed legislation would be a few thousand pounds.

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) asked how many countries have enacted such legislation, but can the Minister tell us whether the United States of America has ratified the protocol?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No, the US is considering ratification at the moment. The additional protocols still have to be taken through Congress. It is worth repeating that, without the mechanism for compelling people to provide the relevant information to the Government and for ensuring a right of access to agency inspectors, we could not guarantee compliance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the additional protocols in the unlikely event that someone was not prepared to co-operate voluntarily. That is very important. I would also emphasise that the burden on business of the new measures will be minimal. Hon. Members were talking among themselves when I mentioned that point earlier, so I wished to repeat it. I note that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has tabled an amendment that questions the Bill's compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, but I assure him that the Government are committed to upholding the principles of individual human rights set out in the European convention on human rights and in that Act. In drafting the Bill, careful consideration has been given to ensuring that its measures uphold the principles set out in the convention and the Government are satisfied that the Bill's provisions are fully compatible with those principles. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the issue was discussed during consideration of the Bill in the other place. We took the opportunity then to consider the point in detail once more, and we are satisfied that nothing in the Bill is inconsistent with the convention. However, I look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman's misgivings on that point.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It will take a long time.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I have no doubt of that, and I am fully prepared for it. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied on that point and is reassured that the matter has been given the careful consideration that it deserves.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the Minister for identifying the modest contribution that I have made so far, and I shall make a more substantial contribution later. He may be surprised to hear that I am not prepared to accept the general reassurances that he has given. He will know that there is great difference in substance between the rights granted under clause 4, and those granted under clause 5. I would accept his reassurances about clause 4, but clause 5 gives us all much greater concern. How can the Minister square the rights in the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 with the untrammelled rights that would be given to foreigners to trample over British citizens' property and possessions?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The right hon. Gentleman is right to identify clause 5 as the key provision in the Bill. Unlike clause 4, it does not require a warrant to be issued before access to premises is sought. A requirement to obtain a warrant is considered an appropriate control on the exercise of a general power to enter a premises, and especially on a power to search for items or information or to collect evidence for possible use in a prosecution. Clauses 4 and 8 contain general search powers of that sort, and those powers are exercisable only on the granting of a warrant. However, as the right hon. Gentleman says, clause 5 does not provide a power to enter premises and conduct a search, nor one to enter premises and carry out activities in general terms. The agency's rights under clause 5 relate only to entering premises to conduct certain tightly defined activities. As such, a warrant provision in clause 5 is not considered necessary or appropriate. I hope that, in the light of these remarks, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will reconsider his amendment. I also hope that the Opposition will give their wholehearted support to this new and important non-proliferation measure. Germany, Spain and the Netherlands have succeeded in completing their legislative procedures and are in a position to ratify their additional protocols. We must now focus on our efforts to ensure that we can do likewise. I emphasise the importance of making good progress towards putting the legislation in place before Easter. On 24 April, the review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty starts in New York. Last year, the United Kingdom, along with our EU partners, made a public commitment to make every effort to conclude our ratification procedures for entry into force of the additional protocol in time for that conference. The conference will be an important event for the United Kingdom, which is a leading proponent of nuclear non-proliferation and a state with nuclear weapons. We hope to be able to report that significant progress has been made towards the objective.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Has the Minister's Department had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers or the police service about clause 5(5), which would put a British police constable under an obligation to give help or assistance, or to use force, under the orders of a foreign inspector? If so, what was the view of the British police on the matter?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, I believe that extensive discussions have taken place. I hope that Conservative Members are not about to raise the spectre of foreign inspectors trampling through Britain. I remind them that those inspectors may well be British—indeed, they may be English. We are talking about an international agency, and we have many distinguished inspectors. I am sure that Conservative Members would love to throw a net over all the inspectors and call them filthy foreigners. However, that would be a big mistake, and they must be very careful: this country has played a great part in the International Atomic Energy Agency, and in ensuring that our expertise, built up over many years, is used to best effect.

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

Will the Minister agree that rhetoric in the House, even when the banter is good natured, could be used by other countries to justify their exclusion of their foreigners? We should be careful that representatives of the United Nations and other international bodies in which this country plays a leading role are not simply called foreigners.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon.Gentleman has expressed this far better than I could. Those are the words that Saddam Hussein used to drive out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. I assume that Conservative Members will not behave in a similar way.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the Minister give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No, I am about to finish. To sum up, let me say that enacting the Bill will represent a clear demonstration of the United Kingdom's strong commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. As a nuclear weapons state, it is incumbent on the United Kingdom to take a strong lead on the issue as a tangible illustration to the European community and the world that we do not procrastinate when it comes to our non-proliferations obligations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I remind the House that Madam Speaker did not select the amendment that is on the Order Paper.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I congratulate the Minister on setting out the Government's position very clearly. The Bill is one of those measures that appear relatively straightforward and uncontroversial on the surface, particularly to any Government wishing to fulfil their international obligations. The logic behind it seems compelling. The United Kingdom, under successive Administrations, has had a good record in this respect, and Conservative Members want us to continue to enjoy that reputation. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) objected to the Government's trying to slide this very important issue through as a private Member's Bill. We do not want to send a message to the rest of the world that we regard this measure as so unimportant that we will just stick it through as a private Member's Bill. Frankly, that is just not good enough, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has been successful, in that the Bill is being debated in the House and will now go through the proper procedures and become a proper Government Bill in the fullness of time. I have to confess one minor worry—the Minister said that he would like to see this done by Easter. I am not sure whether the procedures of the House are such that that can happen, given that the Bill has to be considered in Committee and on Report; I am unaware that the Report stage is to occur on Good Friday, for instance. Wherever possible, we wish to help and to expedite the proceedings.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has another worry. Was he not as concerned as I was that when the Minister referred to the United Kingdom's international policy on North Korea, he thought that Seoul was the capital of North Korea.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend, as always, makes his point in his own inimitable fashion. I can understand that as the Minister was born in south Wales, and does not travel very far, he may get muddled about where Seoul is. I suffer from the same problem. As some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, not every country seems to share the justifiable ambitions of this Government and the others who have so far ratified and implemented the treaty. I think that this issue is a bit like the issue of dog licences. Right hon. and hon. Members may wonder how on earth I can draw such a parallel. During earlier Sessions of Parliament, the House has debated dog licences ad nauseam. Eventually, it dawned on people that the good guys will get dog licences, look after their dogs and make sure that they have a tag, while the bad guys will not. We should be focusing our attention and efforts on the bad guys. The same applies to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons which came into force in 1970, and the subsequent efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons technology. One of the principal aims of the treaty has been to try to prevent the diversion of peaceful research and development of nuclear energy into the development and production of nuclear weapons. We all say amen to that. States that did not have nuclear weapons have been encouraged—and cajoled in some cases—to enter into agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to inhibit them from going down the nuclear path. Like the four other declared nuclear weapons states, this country has entered voluntary safeguard agreements with the IAEA under which inspectors have been granted access to our facilities for the purpose of monitoring the production of potentially fissile materials and for tracing them from the time of their production. Since 1991, we and our partners—together with other countries—have been engaged in tightening up the systems and safeguards, resulting in the additional protocol that we signed with the IAEA in September 1998 and to which the Bill gives full force. Not to put too fine a point on it, we have been one of the good boys—or, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) would have it, one of the good persons—in terms of meeting international obligations. Others have not. No one needs reminding of the IAEA's failure to detect the development of clandestine weapons programmes in Iraq and North Korea. Iraq was a member of the IAEA. India and Pakistan were and are members, but that has not stopped them developing their own nuclear weapons in breach of their agreements with the IAEA. It may be that Libya is going down the same route. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is worried about the Russian nuclear submarines that are rusting away in the Arctic circle, adding steadily to all the environmental pollution that has occurred there. I am a little sceptical about the effectiveness of marching to the drumbeat of the IAEA. However, it is the only show in town, and it is important that we demonstrate our willingness to live up to our obligations and to repeat the commitment made by our Conservative colleagues in another place generally to support the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

While it is instructive and reassuring to know that, under clause 4(7), no constable shall search someone of the opposite sex, what recourse does a private individual have against the improper use of powers contained in clause 5? If the answer is that there is no formal recourse against an inappropriate use of the clause, how has the Minister been able to satisfy himself that the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

It is a matter of deep regret to me that I am not the Minister in control of these matters. If I were, I am sure we would have proceeded with sweetness and light, without all of the concerns expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall touch fleetingly on that subject later; I am sure that the Minister will give crystal-clear answers that will satisfy everybody, and we will all live happily ever after. There are questions which need answering. The Bill extends the powers of the Secretary of State to require information or records to be kept. Where it is suspected that offences may have been committed under the Bill, it will give his authorised officers and inspectors from the IAEA enhanced rights of entry to the premises and business of corporations, and even into the homes of private individuals, in search of information. That extends even to the colonies of the UK. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain precisely to what range of installations the record-keeping requirements set out in clause 2 will apply. Some facilities, such as the nuclear reprocessing facilities at Sellafield or the nuclear power stations at Dungeness or Bradwell, are obvious. It is unclear how far university research facilities may be affected. Cambridge university was recently fined a small amount for losing track of nuclear material handled in its laboratories. I assume—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that the Bill will apply to university facilities. Will the Minister discuss the cost implications of the new requirements? He has fallen into the trap of dismissing the sums of money involved as small ones. That shows that the Government do not understand business. As the Bill passed through the other place, we were told: The cost to small businesses involved in manufacturing or consultancy work which would be caught by the proposed legislation would be in the order of a few thousand pounds per year.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 777.] It was implied that, as the sum was just a few thousand, we need not worry. As one who knows a small amount about the small business sector, I can say that such sums do matter. A few thousand here or there, or a few regulations here or there, can put a perfectly viable business on the borderline. I wish that the Minister would be clearer on the impact of costs on our smaller businesses. What requirements will the record-keeping organisation have to meet? Guidance will be issued by the DTI's safeguards office following discussions between the IAEA and the Government. New recording procedures may be necessary, but the Government have given little indication of the period over which such novel demands might be introduced. The House can reasonably ask for that information before we accept clause 2. From the point of view of the small business—the Conservative party is the small business man's friend—we know that the extra burdens and duties imposed by new regulations will mean that, instead of getting on with running a business, small business men or women will be consigned to filling in lots of forms to satisfy the Government's insatiable desire for information.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Will the hon. Gentleman name for me one or two firms that have ever complained about the onerous burden that he so beautifully describes?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

They have not seen the regulations yet.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The voices off mean that I need offer no response to that. May I remind the Minister of what I have just said? His Department has given little indication of the period over which novel demands may be introduced. What extra compliance will be required? Until businesses know that, they cannot know whether to complain. The Minister is putting the cart before the horse. I have absolutely no doubt that when some organisations read the new demands, they will say, "Not another burden on business; we can add it to the record of 1999 when more burdens were placed on businesses than in any other year of this country's existence." I shall move on because I do not wish to be accused of delaying matters. May I request further information on the requirements of clause 2(7)? What will the Minister's legal advisers regard as a "reasonable" excuse by a person who fails to comply with a notice requiring certain records to be kept or retained? I recently served on the Committee that considered the Postal Services Bill, in which the word "reasonable" was discussed several times, but I am still waiting for the Minister in charge of that Bill to produce a definition. What would or would not be justifiable as an excuse? Would a failure by the safeguards officer of the DTI to supply a copy of guidance be an excuse? I am also interested in the regulations that the Secretary of State may make under clause 3, which has one of those lovely, cryptic openings so beloved of parliamentary draftsmen. It states: The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description and to give such supplementary particulars as may be so specified. That shows that Sir Humphrey is alive and well and living in the DTI. After several hours of trying to work out what that provision meant, I decided that, in plain language, it puts the onus on individuals and organisations to identify themselves to the Secretary of State. However, if they are not aware that they should be thus identified—if individuals have not been informed by their employers that they fall into that category—how are those with only a peripheral involvement in such matters to proceed? How will they be clearly identified? Will every junior lab technician at nuclear power plants be included? It would be helpful if the Minister could put some practical flesh on that point in his reply. Obviously, the more extensive his response now, the less will be the need for further debate and questioning on other occasions. Any information gathered about such individuals or organisations must be passed on to the IAEA according to subsection (2)(a) of the clause. What security procedures has the Department agreed with the IAEA to ensure that such information remains confidential? Will the Minister assure us that the agency's procedures are as good—if not better—than those operating in the UK?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Is my hon. Friend as astonished as I am by the fact that the United Kingdom will sign that important protocol—if the Bill is passed—but that countries such as the Ukraine, North Korea, Libya, Israel, India, Pakistan, Belarus, Iraq and Iran have gone nowhere near it?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend again makes an important point. Not only am I not the Minister in charge of the Bill and thus unable to answer such questions—as I said before—but I am not in charge of all the countries that he mentioned. I hope that when all our questions are answered and we sign the protocol, we can encourage, by example, some of those countries to tread the path of righteousness and truth so as to bring a little security and stability to the world.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend referred to righteousness and truth. Is he therefore impressed by the fact that the Holy See has signed up to the additional protocol?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend has upset me, because I had planned to devote a considerable part of my short introduction to the splendid example set by the Holy See in the matter. I am not too sure about its nuclear capability and capacity.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

The ultimate deterrent.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The Holy See offers a splendid and commendable example to which I hope that the Minister will draw attention in his remarks.

Malcolm Savidge (Labour, Aberdeen North)

A different sort of missal.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, rather than making remarks from a sedentary position, I—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. There have been too many sedentary interventions. I remind the House that the subject is extremely serious.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Thank you for your support and protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a firm supporter of nuclear power. It is one of the cleanest forms of energy and it should be more widely used in this country. However, because of the way in which that power can be corrupted and wrongly used, it is vital that information about it does not pass into the wrong hands—certainly not to members of active terrorist organisations. I can think of no reasonable objection to creating powers to enable the Secretary of State to obtain information or records that have been withheld or not supplied and are required under the notice that he has issued. It is not clear why the power of entry in clause 4 to search for information that should have been supplied to the Secretary of State should be exercised at any reasonable hour. Again, that lovely word "reasonable" is used, and I hope that the Minister will explain what that means. What is reasonable? Is it reasonable to enter business premises or a private dwelling between 7 am and 11 pm but not after 11 pm? Is the dawn raid no more? Will there no longer be a knock at the door at 5.30 am? I would be grateful if the Minister—who can seek advice from all his sources—could advise us what is meant by reasonable. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), ever conscious of the need to have balance in our lives, has already pointed out the difficulties of providing officers of each sex to do a search. Every search team will need a woman police constable so that the job can be done properly.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

This is an important point. I accept what the Minister has said about the search procedures, but if it is so important to discover illegally held material on somebody's person, it is a little worrying that the absence of a woman police officer might mean that the person hiding that material would get away with it. Surely we must decide whether the needs of international nuclear disarmament should take priority over political correctness.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend endorses the comment that I just made. The wording of the Bill means that a search will have to include male and female officers if it is to be effective. That is right, and nobody should be given the chance to evade the requirements of such important legislation.

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in all forms of search by all agencies in the United Kingdom there is always a male and a female officer present? Is he not aware that if a person to be searched were of the opposite sex to the officers conducting the search, there is no reason why that person could not be held until an officer of the same sex was available? Surely he should move on from this point?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am more than prepared to move on; I was saying that the Bill covers that point—and I do not find that objectionable or offensive. The hon. Gentleman can make his own points about other aspects of parliamentary activity and legislation, although they would have to be in order, otherwise Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rightly come down on him and keep him in line. As the Government made clear in another place, clause 5 is central to the Bill, and a number of my hon. Friends have homed in on that point. It has been made abundantly clear that the IAEA is not, and never has been, party to the European convention on human rights, and that the Government believe that the powers to be granted to IAEA inspectors to enter premises do not breach the convention. I am aware of the exchanges on that issue which took place in another place. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the Department's confidence is entirely well founded. The extremely careful language used by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 13 December and 24 January indicated that he anticipated potential legal challenge from UK citizens whose premises or homes might be entered by IAEA inspectors without warrants granted by justices of the peace. It was admitted in the other place that the courts should be able to decide for themselves whether that inconsistency— that is, between the requirements of clauses 4 and 5 with regard to a warrant— was relevant to any offence with which a person was charged under the Bill—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1349.] Does that give the game away? Does that mean that the courts could decide that the Bill infringes the European convention on human rights? if they do, the blame will rightly lie at the Minister's feet. Of course it is right to restrict the disclosure of information obtained from persons subject to the provisions of the Bill or the additional protocol. I understand that there are circumstances in which such information may be disclosed. There should be no difficulty if the person from whom the information has been obtained consented, as envisaged by clause 6(2). Clearly, information that is relevant to criminal allegations or offences must be disclosed to the prosecuting authorities, but what is the position of individuals or companies affected by the disclosure of commercially sensitive information in criminal proceedings that fail? One can easily envisage a situation in which information about nuclear fuel reprocessing—for example, at Sellafield, which is a highly sensitive subject—might be of great interest and value to competitors overseas. What redress would there be for individuals or organisations found innocent of alleged offences? The fact that many of the provisions of clause 8 duplicate those of clause 4 has already attracted comment in another place. Clause 4 determines how information may be sought, if it is not supplied to the Secretary of State, and clause 8 deals with the powers that officers authorised by the Secretary of State will have to search premises for evidence that offences have been committed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Given that there is some lingering uncertainty as to whether the Bill in all its aspects is compatible with the European convention on human rights, would not Ministers do us a signal service were they to publish the legal advice that they received on that point from our old friends the Government lawyers?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The Minister has no doubt heard my hon. Friend's request. It would be helpful if he would consider such a kind gesture to my hon. Friend. That would also be a service to the rest of the House. I do not apologise for making detailed points because, although we are in favour of the Bill in principle, it is necessary to make sure that the matters of concern that I have raised are satisfactorily answered and given a clear bill of health. My final detailed point arises from clause 12. It is clear that the Bill, if enacted, will apply throughout the United Kingdom, and if Her Majesty grants an Order in Council, to the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. I am intrigued to see that it may be applied to "any colony." What explanation can the Minister offer the House for that provision? Is the development of nuclear power programmes on St. Helena or the Falkland islands imminent? I should have thought not, but this may be one of the few occasions on which the Government are thinking ahead. I hope that the Minister can provide answers to the questions that have been put to him not only by me, but by my hon. Friends in their contributions. I hope that we can then make sure that the Bill gets a quick passage on to the statute book, showing that we are fully behind its aims and objectives.

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

I support the Bill, which ratifies the additional protocol to the safeguards mandated in article 3 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, with wider provisions covering undeclared facilities and more effective inspections. It is substantially the private Member's Bill that I introduced—Bill No. 23 of the 1998–99 Session. I am delighted that the Government have found time to take the matter forward. I am also delighted to pay tribute to a predecessor of mine as the Member of Parliament for Putney, the noble Lord Jenkins, who is 92 years old and still speaking strongly in the other place on the cause of nuclear disarmament. He will be pleased that the Bill, although small in its way, is the way forward. I should also point out that I succeeded as Labour candidate for Putney the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said, will be representing the Government at the review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty on 24 April. I am very pleased that, as the current Member of Parliament for Putney, I am able to follow in the tradition of those two very great men. I should thank all those who helped me last year in pursuing my private Member's Bill, particularly Dr. Stephen Pullinger of the Institute for Science and International Security and Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym institute. I also thank the staff at the British embassy in Vienna and of the International Atomic Energy Agency for all their help, which enabled me fully to understand the workings of the IAEA and the need for the protocol. I also thank all-party groups that helped me to pursue the cause of ratification in Hong Kong, with the People's Republic of China, and in South Korea, in discussion with North Korea. I am grateful for the Korean ambassador's continuing support for the additional protocol.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This is all very interesting, but why was there no requirement in clause 4 of the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill for Department of Trade and Industry inspectors—let alone international inspectors—to seek a search warrant from a justice of the peace?

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister answering that question in his winding-up speech.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

No, I should like to proceed with my speech. In thanking the all-party British-American parliamentary group, I particularly draw attention to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am also grateful for the widespread support of the United States Administration—in both the House of Representatives and the Senate—for the additional protocol.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. Am I right in thinking that he has just enunciated a novel notion of parliamentary responsibility? He said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) that it is the responsibility of the Minister to explain the lacuna in a Back-Bench Bill.

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, this Bill is substantially similar to my private Member's Bill, but its provisions are now those of a Government Bill, and I therefore look forward to the Minister dealing with it. I am pleased that the United Kingdom is the first nuclear power to proceed with ratification of the additional protocol. I originally chose to promote my Bill because I was concerned that, when United Nations inspectors were ordered out of Iraq in December 1998, there appeared to be no basis for a wider approach to enable all countries across the world to proceed with establishing a standard inspection regime. I was obviously very pleased, therefore, to discover that the additional protocol had been signed on 22 September and that we were able to take matters forward. The additional protocol cannot be imposed on Iraq because of sanctions dating from the end of the Iraq war in 1991. I call on Iraq to demonstrate its openness and to sign and ratify the protocol. As has been said, there is also need for Cuba, Israel, India and Pakistan to do so.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman calls on Iraq to sign up to the additional protocol, but does he have any reason to believe that, were it to do so, it would be any more likely to stick to it, given that it was a signatory to the safeguard agreement in the first place?

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

The hon. Gentleman does not understand that the safeguard agreement that Iraq signed did not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency the right to search, as the Bill does. The reason for the additional protocol is to deal with Iraq's duplicity. When it was developing nuclear weapons, it stated that it was not doing that.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Would the hon. Gentleman have confidence that, if Iraq signed the additional protocol, the system would work if any search by the international body required an affidavit from the equivalent of a justice of the peace in Baghdad? Some hon. Members seem to proposing that.

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

I agree. When some hon. Members intervened on my hon. Friend the Minister, I sometimes wondered whether they were speaking for Saddam Hussein. However, I am sure that they were not. I draw the attention of the House to the excellent work of the current inquiry of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs into weapons of mass destruction. I shall mention two of the people who have given evidence to the inquiry and who have supported my work in the past year. Professor John Simpson of the Mountbatten centre for international studies pointed out in his evidence that many new states are acceding to the non-proliferation treaty, and that it has widened. There is now the treaty of Rarotonga, which covers the south Pacific, the treaty of Bangkok, which covers south-east Asia and the treaty of Pelindaba, which covers Africa. Those treaties cover nuclear weapons-free zones, and involve more than 100 states. Until all states have ratified the additional protocol, we cannot move to a new system of integrated safeguards. That makes it imperative that we, as one of the nuclear powers, take the lead on the matter. Rebecca Johnson, who is executive director of the Acronym institute, stated in her evidence: So far, the rate of signature and ratification of the Additional Protocols has been abysmal. For Britain to have ratified before the 2000 NPT conference would be an important signal of its commitment to strengthening the safeguards regime and improving the IAEA powers for monitoring and inspecting nuclear capable states. It has already been said that approximately 48 countries have now signed, including the main nuclear powers: the United Kingdom, the United States, the People's Republic of China, France and, on 22 March this year, Russia. So far, only eight countries have ratified. It is a pity that Euratom has not moved forward on the matter. Earlier, the Minister and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) mentioned the anxieties of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The right hon. Member.

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

I apologise. The right hon. Gentleman expressed anxiety that the Bill might contravene the European convention on human rights. That matter was fully discussed in another place and on Third Reading. Those debates are worth reading. The matter can be taken further in Committee. I am worried that a more lenient regime might be established in this country, whereby warrants would have to be issued before inspection could take place. Such a regime would be used as a coach and horses, and would ensure that rogue states such as Iraq would continue to be able to hide the evidence. It would nullify the need and effectiveness of the additional protocol.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman's point is one of the fundamental problems that worries my hon. Friends and me. The other place states that the Bill will not contravene the European convention on human rights. Nevertheless, the courts could decide that the Bill constituted an infringement. If that happened, we could be in difficulties.

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

We could have experienced the same problem with our land mines and chemical weapons Acts. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should not enter into any international treaty obligations. It is important to lead the way and not to have a less stringent inspection regime in this country for land mines, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons than elsewhere.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and I am grateful to him for promoting me, but I am a humble hon. Member. We obviously do not want difficulties. We want things to go smoothly and sweetly and we must have as much information as possible to ensure that the proposal will not be challenged in the courts. I say that the IAEA must be able to take up those powers without infringement; he says, "It's going to be all right and we have them for the land mines and chemical treaties"—but that does not definitively answer what could be a difficult problem.

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

I am suggesting not that the proposal is the definitive answer, but that the matter has been examined again and again by the House in relation to similar treaty obligations. I am sure that it will be fully explored again in Committee. We must not give a signal, particularly ahead of the review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty on 26 April, that we are against an inspection regime in this country that we would wish on other countries. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who recently set up the all-party group on global security and non-proliferation. I was pleased that not only Michael Douglas, but prominent Ministers and shadow Ministers from both sides of the House attended a recent meeting, because dealing with weapons of mass destruction has been too far down the House's agenda for far too long. I have an important final point to make. In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development brought together representatives of developing countries, many of whom were benefiting or were to benefit from the debt relief provisions for which Jubilee 2000 has fought for a long time. The meeting examined their armaments budgets and considered whether they wanted to think again about the amount that they were spending. That is a legitimate way forward. The money forgone for debt relief will be diverted to poverty alleviation and we must consider whether more can be done to persuade countries to move on armaments purchases as well. As the non-proliferation treaty review approaches, we must consider the fact that expenditure on weapons of mass destruction is largely made by developed countries in the G8 and, as Jubilee 2000 comes to its triumphant conclusion, whether we should establish a Jubilee 2002. We must bring to the top of the agenda the aim of all parties throughout the world moving forward on multilateral disarmament by dealing with weapons of mass destruction. I want the United Kingdom to take the lead and the Bill is a small step in that direction. I commend it to the House.

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said, no more important matter could be brought before the House than attempts to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, especially, of nuclear weapons. I endorse his comments about the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). I am pleased to see him in the Chamber as he has done a great deal of work not only through the all-party group, but by initiating a recent Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is surely the most important international issue facing the countries of the world and, briefly, I want to add the support of Liberal Democrat Members to the Government's efforts. Many Conservative Members want to speak and I shall not detain the House for long, but I share some of their concerns about the Bill starting life as a private Member's Bill. It should have been a Government Bill from the beginning as it clearly represents a matter of great importance. Proliferation has been accelerated and exaggerated since the end of the cold war. Indeed, I am off to Russia tomorrow for talks with people from the Ministry of Defence about their problems. It seems clear to us that this country has a duty to impose on itself the most stringent, the most rigorous and the most transparent regime of all to ensure that we can safeguard and monitor our nuclear industry. I believe that we have an almost unique role to play in leading the calls for multinational disarmament. This country is a leading member of the European Union, a permanent member of the Security Council and a member of the Commonwealth. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is not in his place, but I would say to him that this country should take a lead by fulfilling our obligations because we are a key member of all those international bodies. We should do so for that reason alone. This country has a unique position given our special relationship with the United States and our long history of developing and deploying nuclear weapons in the field. It is important that we should take the lead, and I am glad that the Government are now doing so, albeit late in the day. I definitely welcome that. Reference has been made to the debate in the House of Lords. I commend the words of my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He made an excellent contribution and questioned Ministers in the other place on a number of points. I want to ask the Minister four specific questions that I hope he will answer in his winding-up speech. Given what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said, will the Minister tell us why the Bill is being applied to the colonies? Does he include Gibraltar in the list? If the Bill is to be extended to the Channel islands, will he ensure that arms brokers and arms companies that place information on the internet from the colonies are also to be subject to this legislation? What about the role of justices of the peace? It seems to us that the Bill places an important burden on them. Will they be given additional technical support and information so that they can make a proper judgment on whether to grant permission for searches to take place? Reference has also been made to the position of the United States. Given our special relationship and the concern of hon. Members and many people in the country about the failure of the United States to ratify this and other treaties, and the suggestion that the United States will seek British participation in its national missile defence programme, will the Minister ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence raises the issue of US non-ratification with his American counterparts in any discussions he may have on the NMD programme? What remedy does the Minister intend British citizens who are searched and have nothing on them should have? Should they have a remedy against the International Atomic Energy Agency, or against the police officers who support a search that reveals nothing?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. The position of the IAEA is analogous to that of Europol, which has rights in this country and has immunity. The answer given by a Minister with regard to Europol was that it would be the constabulary involved against whom any civil action would be taken by an individual or company affected. As this international body also has immunity, is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the same would apply in this instance?

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

Yes, it is my understanding that the remedy would be directed against the police officer who supported any search. It is important to make that point, especially as reference has already been made to nations whose Governments have attempted to prevent international monitoring. This country has a proud record of taking a lead on attempts by all countries to control the proliferation and establish verification of nuclear weapons systems. The Bill is an important part of that, and it is unfortunate that Members from all parties in the House are not more inclined to listen to the debate. I hope that it will receive support. It will get the support of the Liberal Democrats, and I look forward to considering the Bill in Committee.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

One of the problems with this procedure is that it always has the taste of a fait accompli. On the face of it, the House of Commons is debating a substantial matter and an important Bill concerning some important international treaties and obligations. However, the puzzlement is that the explanatory notes say: It was agreed by the Council of Ministers on 8 June 1998 and approved by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 11 June. The Additional Protocol was signed in Vienna on 22 September 1998. if it was agreed by the Council of Ministers, it is surely self-evident that a Minister representing the United Kingdom would have been present, and would have given his or her consent. That raises the question: what is the real meaning of this parliamentary procedure? On the face of it, the answer is that we need a Bill to give effect to what the Minister said on our behalf; but is anyone seriously suggesting that if by some chance the Bill did not receive the assent of both Houses of Parliament, the Minister's signature would somehow be invalidated? What needs to be clarified—a Select Committee is considering it—is whether the Government feel that the parliamentary process that we are undertaking can have any real meaning, or whether we are expected to be some sort of rubber stamp. For instance, if we sought to amend the substance of the Bill giving effect to the protocol, would that in any way invalidate the Minister's signature, given in the Council of Ministers? That strikes me as a relevant question. The first question, in an overall sense, is this: what is the status of our current proceedings? That is to say nothing of the Committee and Report stages, which will give the House an opportunity to examine in much more detail clauses that have already been touched on and to which I hope to return later. Then there is the mystery of the private Member's Bill. I remember distinctly, because I was aware of its passage at the time, that the hon. Member concerned gave the impression that it was his Bill and his alone, and had nothing to do with the Government. I had my doubts at the time, and they have simply been confirmed by our proceedings. It would appear—this is the evidence; I wait for a Minister to deny it—that the Government sought to smuggle their provisions through the parliamentary process using the vehicle of a private Member's Bill, and when that failed owing to the remarkable diligence of a certain right hon. Member, were forced to do what they should have done from the start, and give the provisions proper parliamentary time in the legislative timetable. That is what they should have done, if they thought that their proposals were sufficiently important. That, I think, explains the apparently inexplicable delay between the Government's signature in September 1998 and the Bill's being subjected to a proper parliamentary process in both Houses in 2000.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It would be fair of my right hon. Friend to point out not just that the Government attempted to smuggle the legislation through as a private Member's Bill, but that they attempted to do so by tacking it on to the end of the Order Paper on a Friday. In those circumstances, it would have had to be bounced through with no Second Reading and no Committee stage. It would have completed all its stages instantly—a process that Madam Speaker thoroughly deplores. I am sure that you do as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. Friend would agree that, even at this early stage, enough questions have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), and in interventions, to suggest that the matter is not uncontroversial. Apparently, it is already highly controversial, and I hope to show that it involves several areas of controversy that will have to be resolved during the parliamentary process.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is bad enough that Ministers should browbeat a hapless Back Bencher into presenting a private Member's Bill that was not of his original choosing, but have they not compounded the error by failing at least adequately to brief the Member in question on why the Bill contained what it did contain, and did not contain what it did not contain?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I think that we have dealt sufficiently with the Bill's history; perhaps we could now deal with its content.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The protocol is at the heart of the matter. I want to spend some time on it, particularly its preamble, which mentions the awareness of the desire of the international community— whatever that is, for I have never fully understood what it is; the phrase has slipped into parlance, but has no meaning, as far as I am aware— to further enhance— a split infinitive appears even in the preamble of an allegedly important document— nuclear non-proliferation by strengthening the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of the Agency's safeguards system. That is the rather high-blown, if ungrammatical, intention. It causes me some concern. In both domestic legislation and international treaties, there is a burgeoning of such flowery language, which may reassure some people, but does little to add any substance to what we are discussing. I invoke briefly a speech by a gentleman called Mr. Michael Douglas, who recently appeared in the Palace of Westminster at a meeting attended by many senior and well-meaning colleagues. He glories in the title of United Nations messenger on something or other. He was here to discuss the very matter that is the substance of the protocol and the Bill. I quote a brief paragraph of his words because they are apposite: Right now, as we sit here in Westminster in March of the millennium year, the United States and Russia are in stalemate. The prospective adoption by the United States of a "Star Wars" missile defence system has already led Russia, China and other nations to declare that this would abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and lead to a more confrontational military posture between the US and Russia, and the US and China. He continued: These three treaties—the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty—underpin the current arms control regime. They are in danger of coming apart at a time when more material for making weapons of mass destruction is available worldwide than ever before. There is still the possibility for these three treaties to be saved, and for a return to progress on multi-lateral nuclear disarmament. But it will require leadership. Britain is uniquely placed to assume this leadership role: strong influence is required in Washington, and as a result of the special relationship between our two countries, the influence of the British is particularly strong. That is, we can assume, the view from the UN, carried to us here via the rather unlikely person of Mr. Michael Douglas, but I am sure that he was very welcome. It gives rise to some important questions, not the least of which is: if the recent stories that the UK wishes to join the United States to extend a new anti-ballistic missile arrangement not only to North America, but to western Europe are true, that in itself will raise questions with regard to the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government on the protocol and the Bill. If Mr. Douglas is correct and if I interpret his remarks correctly, the UK Government, in wishing to go ahead and to move forward with an anti-ballistic missile arrangement, are totally at odds with the ethos, if not the terms, of the protocol and the Bill, so the Government need to come clean as to where they stand on that important issue.

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what his position is and—perhaps it would be more enlightening—what the position of his Front-Bench team is on British participation in national missile defence? We have made our position clear. The Government, as he knows, have not yet made their position clear. I would be delighted and interested to know what his position is.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I would not dream of speaking on behalf of my Front-Bench team on that or any other matter, but I am pleased to give my view. I am very keen that we co-operate with our American friends on any measure that will give our citizenry protection against rogue attack from powers throughout the world. I happily take that position. It is part of the reason why I have doubts about the thrust and substance of the Bill and the protocol: can one sign up to the motherhood views and aspirations of such a protocol and Bill, yet go ahead with the real nitty-gritty—the defence imperative of an effective anti-missile defence system?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Is not the situation worse than that? Although the Government have been saying that Britain must give a lead by signing the protocol and showing that we are willing to have International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors visit "any" of our nuclear establishments, they do not mean "any" of our nuclear establishments. In the other place, Lord McIntosh of Haringey made it clear that the protocol's additional obligations cover only civil facilities and do not extend to our defence-related facilities. If we in Great Britain are not willing to let IAEA inspectors into our military nuclear establishments, is there any hope of any other countries in the world—particularly the rogue states—agreeing to such a drastic step?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. Friend has, as ever, anticipated the direction of my remarks; I wanted to deal that point now. What worries me about what I would characterise as gesture legislation, or even as gesture protocol, is precisely that point. The Minister was at pains to tell us, with some pride, that many countries—I think he said that there have been 48 approvals—have already signed and ratified the additional protocol. I have the Library's analysis of the matter. The ever excellent work of the Library shows that there have been 46 approvals, but the Minister told us that two countries have subsequently approved it. The number looks impressive, until one looks at the list's contents. If I were told that Armenia, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Ecuador and Ghana have signed the protocol, I would not be particularly impressed. I would be even less impressed if I were told that the Holy See has signed it—to say nothing of Jordan, Monaco, Peru and Portugal.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

rose—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I shall give way to the Minister in a moment. I have named only a few countries. However, the worrying aspect of this type of exercise is that one is left wondering whether it is only a feel-good exercise for those who strut on the international stage, make self-important speeches, congratulate one another on the progress made, sign protocols and international agreements and make the sort of speeches that we have already heard today. In fact, we are given a list showing that Monaco and the Holy See have signed up to a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As far as I know, countries such as Libya, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran have not signed it. Are we really saying to ourselves and to the world that we are doing something productive and useful that carries us forward? I think not. I suspect that such exercises are very much a combination of factors, including the ego massage of those who attend the conferences. We have been told that one of our Ministers—the Minister for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, if I am not mistaken—will be rushing off to the conference on the protocol. [Interruption.] I realise that the conference will be attended not by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, but by the Minister who represents another part of the Principality—[HON. MEMBERS: "Neath."] Indeed, Neath. I was going to spare him the embarrassment, but my hon. Friends have let the cat out of the bag. We have been told that he will go to yet another conference to strut a similar stage and make a similar speech. It is quite sinister that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, almost casually, in letting the cat out of the bag, told us that he expects the Bill to complete its parliamentary stages by Easter. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you can confirm that a proper regard for the procedures of the House and of parliamentary process make that extremely unlikely, to say the least. Even supposing that the Bill were to receive a Second Reading today—about which I should have very grave reservations—that the Committee of Selection were to meet this Wednesday and rather peremptorily select the Standing Committee members, and that that Committee were to meet at the earliest possible time, which I think would be next Tuesday—does the Minister seriously suggest the Government would have the gall and arrogance to seek to ram through parliamentary procedure a Bill as important and controversial as this in the two parliamentary days remaining between completion of the Committee's consideration—were it to sit only once, which I think unlikely, given the reservations already expressed—and the House rising for Easter? I hope that the Minister made an error or slip of the tongue, and misunderstood what he was saying so he could not possibly be suggesting that the Government would have the gall, even before the Bill has received a Second Reading, to consider telescoping parliamentary process to that extent. I hope that he will confirm that.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is my right hon. Friend suggesting—for the avoidance of any doubt—that the Minister's preference was to ensure that consideration of the Bill in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading is completed on Tuesday 18 April? What a monstrous suggestion.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I do not want to put words into the Minister's mouth. I am saying—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We shall have an explanation. Of course I shall give way.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give way about five minutes ago. He told me that he would, but he has taken a bit of time in doing so. I am afraid that the verb that is being used is wrong. The fact is that I had hoped—not preferred—that we would be able to make progress on the legislation. Clearly, that hope was a forlorn one.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I acknowledge immediately that the Minister's courtesy is an exception to Ministers' usual arrogance to the House. He does us the courtesy of giving way frequently in speeches and of doing his best to answer questions. Typically, he has now shown the proper respect for parliamentary process that is shared by all too few of his colleagues. I am grateful for his comments, which make me feel easier about how the Bill may proceed, were it to be given a Second Reading later today.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am making only my preliminary remarks, but I should like to deal with the protocol and then the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will not detain me too long.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

No; I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would not allow that. My right hon. Friend comments on the Minister's kindness and generosity, but would he not be even more impressed if the Minister not only showed us the courtesies that he has listed, but accepted our arguments?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is pushing his luck a little too far. Let us take it one stage at a time and see whether, on Second Reading, we can tease out some of the problems in the Bill, receive from the Government an acknowledgement of them, and then perhaps get a sense of the possible shape of the Committee's deliberations. I have not even mentioned consideration on Report, when there will have to be further deliberation. That is probably as much as we can expect in this debate. I think that, in a parliamentary sense, it is proper that the debate on Second Reading should enable us to map out the Bill's broad shape and the type of anxieties that hon. Members express. Such a process will provide some clues, and it might even help the Government in timetabling the legislation. It might also help the Government not to send off the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office with too high an expectation—so that he is not too disappointed when he goes to mix with his very important colleagues, on a very important international stage, to make very important speeches to one another—of being able to go with this Bill tucked in his back pocket.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Does it not underline his earlier comments—exempting from criticisms the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who used to pull with me on the tug-of-war team, although he now has a rather weak back—on the Government's attempt in the previous Session to push through very quickly, with the minimum of attention, the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I think that that point has already been more than well made.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am grateful for its endorsement by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I shall not allow my hon. Friends to prevent me from dealing now with the thrust of my argument. I really should like to deal with the protocol, which is what the Bill is all about. The more that I read the protocol, however, the more it worries me. Therefore, it will take me a little time to go through some of my worries. I start with article 2, under the general heading of "Provision of Information". It states: The United Kingdom shall provide the Agency with a declaration containing the information identified in sub-paragraphs (i) … below. Sub-paragraph (i) goes on to talk about A general description of and information specifying the location of those nuclear fuel cycle-related research and development activities carried out anywhere that are funded, specifically authorised or controlled by, or carried out on behalf of, the United Kingdom. Even in the early stages of the protocol, we begin to see the extent of the legislative commitments that we may have to make to fulfil its requirements. My suspicion is that lurking behind those bland words is the possibility that a lot of our institutions could become subject to some difficult arrangements. For example, nuclear fuel cycle-related research and development activities could refer to our universities. We should ask whether we are comfortable with our great seats of learning, with their proud tradition of academic freedom and freedom from Government intervention, being the subject of potential intervention not just, as we shall see later when we look at the Bill in detail, from domestic agencies, protected by warrants and by justices of the peace, but from the rather odd international agency, manned inevitably by foreign nationals. The Minister seemed a bit afraid of that word earlier, but we shall hear a lot of it as the debate unfolds. Our universities in particular may well be subject to intrusion by an agency that is unaccountable in any sense to any organ of government or representation in this country. So article 2.a(i) already thoroughly arouses my suspicions. We asked the Minister earlier whether any institutions, bodies, companies or businesses had expressed any unhappiness about the provisions. I am surprised that our universities have not expressed some disquiet about the fact that their jealously guarded academic freedom and independence and their research and development work may well be subject to intrusion and invasion by an unaccountable and unelected body that is not even subject to proper judicial process through a warrant given by justices of the peace.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is not the explanation for that blindingly obvious? Most of the seats of learning in this country are supremely unaware of the existence of the Bill, let alone of its potential application to them.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is one explanation. Another might be that the universities are full of lefties and CND supporters. There could be any number of possible reasons. Perhaps it would be incautious of me to go into them in too much detail at this stage. I am merely flagging up the anxieties that it would be right for us to acknowledge about the protocol to which the Bill gives effect.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I wanted to intervene on my right hon. Friend before he left the subject of our academic institutions. Does he recall that the Minister admitted that there may be same-sex examination? What would he think if his daughter was being investigated or examined by a male examiner from abroad, probing—I do not know why the Minister laughs—every orifice?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I shall come to the sexual aspects of the Bill in due course, although not quite in the terms that my hon. Friend has asked. I certainly want to keep my daughter—or daughters, as it is—out of this altogether. I have highlighted some of the issues in my research and I shall deal with some of the implications of the provisions of clause 4(7), to which my hon. Friend referred, because they raise some important practical questions, not least on the difference of approach between clauses 4 and 5. We have not got anywhere near the Bill yet—I am still on the early stages of the protocol. I hope that he will forgive me if I try to keep my remarks in reasonable order, so that hon. Members can appreciate the development of my logic. Having skirted briefly over article 2 of the protocol, I turn to article 4, which has the bland heading "Complementary Access". It also gives early hints of the extent of the powers that the protocol might lead us to have to give in the Bill. It again refers to the mysterious, shadowy international agency, whose composition we shall have to return to shortly, because it raises a lot of questions. The article says: The Agency shall not mechanistically or systematically seek to verify the information referred to in article 2— which I have touched on briefly— however, the Agency shall have access to— the article then gives a list, including Any location referred to in Article 5.c. Here again, the scope of the protocol is broadened, which inevitably drives the provisions of the Bill—because the two are inextricably linked—to any location. That is far too all-encompassing and comprehensive to give our citizenry any relief. I move rapidly on to article 5, which says that the United Kingdom shall provide the Agency with access to: Any location specified by the Agency, other than locations referred to in paragraphs a. and b. above, to carry out location-specific environmental sampling and so on. It then says the United Kingdom shall make every reasonable effort to satisfy Agency requirements, without delay, at adjacent locations or through other means. We have become distressingly used to such wording in domestic legislation. The protocol contains comprehensive and all-embracing provisions, talking about "any location", satisfying agency requirements "without delay", which is gratuitous and a bit insulting, and adjacent locations or through other means. It is one thing to make provision for access to specific locations. The earlier parts of the protocol lull us into a false sense of security that it is reassuringly specific, but it is nothing of the kind. I would not accuse any hon. Member, least of all those present, of having made only a superficial examination of anything, but even my superficial examination of article 5 has flushed out the fact that we are talking about adjacent locations. That makes it possible to extend the scope of the activities of the shadowy and rather sinister agency not just to the locations specified, but to adjacent locations—that gives very wide scope—"or through other means". That is our old friend the blanket provision, which would allow the agency to go almost anywhere and to do almost anything. That is the protocol to which we are being asked to give effect.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that the protocol covers academic institutions. Has he had a chance to estimate the disincentive for institutions such as Microsoft to invest in science parks adjacent to institutions such as Cambridge university, which has nuclear research facilities?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I do not want to explore that in too much detail at this stage, because my hon. Friend is inviting me to speculate on whether there is a difference in approach between, on the one hand, universities, other academic institutions and research and development facilities and commercial businesses such as Microsoft, which will carry out research and development that may have a bearing on nuclear facilities and could well be adjacent in location, and, on the other hand, more specifically nuclear facilities, which can be identified more readily. I shall not explore that at this stage. I suspect that some of my hon. Friends may want to pick up on that point later. I do not want to detain the House for too long.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Well, yes, but I am trying to make progress.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My right hon. Friend is making splendid progress. However, is not the use of this rather worrying and vague term "by other means" indicative of a tendency, certainly in the context of the protocol and the Bill, to abandon the traditional British legislator's insistence upon specificity in favour of high-falutin' continental declarations of good intent? If this is to be an all-embracing power, is it not doubly important that aggrieved parties should have proper recourse to the law if they feel that the powers contained in the Bill and the protocol have been improperly applied?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I would have thought that that is self-evident, and obviously my hon. Friend does. However, that does not seem to have occurred to the Government. It is something that we want to explore when we come to examine the Bill in detail, as I hope that we shall do fairly shortly. We want to explore the differences between the relevant clauses. I am trying to get through the protocol as quickly as possible while doing it justice, and I want to move on. I may surprise the House, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to identify what I think is a weakness in the provisions of the protocol that might undermine the effectiveness of its aims. I hope that this approach will show my even-handedness. I have been rather sceptical and negative about the protocol, and that reflects my general demeanour. I wish to examine some rather worrying provisions. If the protocol and the inspection process are to be effective, it is essential that there should be the element of surprise. That being so, I was surprised when I read the detail of article 4b(i) and (ii) and then c and e. Article 4b(i) states that the agency shall give the United Kingdom … advance notice of access of at least 24 hours. Sub-paragraph (ii) adds that there can be a period of at least two hours but, in exceptional circumstances, it may be less than two hours. Paragraph c provides: Advance notice shall be in writing and shall specify the reasons for access and the activities to be carried out during such access. Astonishingly, paragraph e states: Unless otherwise agreed to by the United Kingdom, access shall only take place during regular working hours. If we are to have effective inspection within a highly sensitive area, it is astonishing that the inspectors should be trammelled and hemmed in by these provisions of notice. Whether we are talking about domestic school inspections or health and safety inspections, surely their effectiveness must be diminished by the extent to which advance notice must be given. If we are saying that the inspector has to say in writing, "Excuse me chaps, but we are coming to see you in a few days' time and we hope to root out all your nuclear secrets and find out how it is that you are making bombs without telling anyone," that is surely an ineffective approach.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

(New Forest, East): Does my right hon. Friend's memory take him back to previous arms control treaties? There was once something called the seabed treaty, which provided that it was all right to have nuclear submarines patrolling the depths but not to install nuclear weapons on the seabed. Was not that truly likened to an agreement not to screw aircraft to the ground? In that sense, is not the Bill part of a long and honourable tradition?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That may be. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend will seek to catch your eye later. His knowledge of these matters is infinitely greater than mine will ever be, and I defer to him. He has illustrated what often underlies these measures: they are high on intent and aspiration and regrettably low on substance and effectiveness. My example seems to suggest that that is the position. Either we are serious about these matters or we are not. Given all the high-flown words of Ministers, their attendance at conferences, their signing of documents and the issuing of protocols, where is the beef? The astonishing requirements of advance notice do not add anything to the effectiveness of the proposed measures. Almost certainly they detract from it. I move on rapidly to article 4f, which states: The United Kingdom, or for access under article 5.a. or otherwise involving nuclear material, the United Kingdom and the Community, shall have the right to have Agency inspectors accompanied during their access by representatives of the United Kingdom. There is some reassurance for those of us who are worried about foreign nationals tramping round the United Kingdom and invading private premises and people's inherent and well-founded rights. There is some comfort that the inspectors will be accompanied by representatives of the United Kingdom, and as appropriate by Community inspectors, provided that Agency inspectors shall not thereby be delayed or otherwise impeded in the exercise of their functions. Having given us an apparent assurance, that is almost immediately undermined by the document stating, as I read it and unless the Minister tells me otherwise, that it will be at the discretion of agency inspectors to determine whether they feel that they have been delayed or impeded. If they can argue that they will be delayed or impeded if they have to wait to be accompanied by representatives of the United Kingdom, they can exercise the enormous powers that are provided by the Bill without any such accompaniment. There is an attempt to give an assurance that Members might reasonably expect, but almost immediately that is taken away. That is characteristic of the protocol throughout in that it seeks to face both ways. Article 7 deals with the important matter of sensitive information. It provides: Upon request by the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom and the Agency shall make arrangements for managed access under this Protocol to prevent the dissemination— I think that there is a misprint— of proliferation sensitive information … to protect proprietary or commercially sensitive information. It will help us in Committee and on Report if the Minister will explain how the Government envisage these important arrangements being made and being made effective. That will require an institutional arrangement and protocols within the protocol or within the terms of the Bill to try to ensure that concern about sensitive information is properly met. How will that be done? The article adds that the arrangements about protecting sensitivity shall not preclude the Agency from conducting activities necessary to resolve a question relating to the correctness and completeness of the information. It appears that the agency always has a let out. Having been given an assurance about sensitivity or whatever, we are told almost immediately that if the agency sees things differently, it will always have the last word. Our citizenry and those running our academic and business institutions can well be uneasy about that. I move on to article 11. The House will see that I am picking up pace as I go along.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I will, but I am getting quite close to the end of my examination of the protocol. I am anxious to have a brief discussion about human rights, and then I will start considering the Bill.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I eagerly anticipate the later stages of my right hon. Friend's disquisition. While accepting my right hon. Friend's concerns about the academic freedoms of our universities being impinged upon, does he recognise that there might be a problem in dealing with non-democracies which sign the protocol? Is there not a danger that they would set up bogus educational institutions as covers to manufacture weapons of mass destruction that would be secure from inspection? Is that why the Government feel that they must go as far as they are, despite my right hon. Friend's concerns?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I will not attempt to cover that point. I know that many of my colleagues, especially my hon. Friend, are much more qualified to deal with it than I am, and I hope that they will expand upon it. Suffice to say that I share that anxiety. There is an inherent paradox in the whole process, because the member states which take a pride in their democratic accountability and their international responsibilities will sign up to such treaties. They regularly rub shoulders, and congratulate each other on what responsible world citizens they are. The regrettable paradox is that the very states that ignore the international treaties and do not sign up to them are the ones that are most likely to be a global threat. I shall not explore that matter further now, because I prefer to stick to the minutiae and leave the global vision to those of my colleagues who are much better qualified to address it. Articles 11 and 12 are interlinked. Article 11 states: Unless the Community or the United Kingdom advises the Director General of the rejection of such an official as an inspector for the United Kingdom within three months of … the Board's approval, the inspector so notified … shall be considered designated. That is a long-winded way of saying—at least, I hope so—that the United Kingdom would have a veto on inspectors. That is an important point and I want the Minister to answer it specifically when he winds up. Is my reading of article 11 correct and will the UK have a veto over the appointment of inspectors? If the answer is yes, I will be somewhat reassured. If it is no, for any reason, I will be very worried that any old foreign national could come in to this country and exercise the extraordinary powers in the Bill.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the answer is yes, we have a veto.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the Minister for that courteous and prompt reply to my question. Article 12 contains an important point about visas. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends present have far greater knowledge on that subject than I do and I shall, therefore, tread only delicately on that ground in the hope that the issue will be covered later in the debate. Suffice it to say that, on the face of it—this is another question for the Minister—it looks as if the normal sovereign power of this country to grant or withhold visas to foreign nationals who wish to come to the United Kingdom will be completely nullified and overridden by this extraordinary provision in article 12. Article 12 states—I can scarce believe it— The United Kingdom shall … provide the designated inspector specified— one who has survived our veto— with appropriate multiple entry/exit and/or transit visas, where required, to enable the inspector to enter and remain on the territory of the United Kingdom. It continues: Any visas … shall be valid for at least one year and shall be renewed, as required. That may be completely at odds with many of our domestic statutory provisions and with the powers that I thought that this country had retained for itself as sovereign, even within the European Union. Were we to give effect to article 12, we might give up our power to control the entry of foreign nationals to this country. If that is the case, that is extraordinarily worrying.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Has my right hon. Friend considered the implications of such visas being made available for a period of as long as a year at a time? Even if nothing untoward were done in the course of the inspection visits themselves, undesirable people such as senior intelligence officers would have the facility to come and go at other times apart from when they were doing their job and inspecting the nuclear facilities.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend's point reinforces the point that I have just made. The article does not require that the visits by inspectors should be specific to their duties or responsibilities. Instead, it gives those foreign nationals complete freedom to move in and out of the United Kingdom for any unrelated purpose.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the uncertain extent to which this country retains a veto over international persons coming here to undertake their responsibilities, we should not derive undue comfort from the veto? What matters, as Hayek long ago taught us, is not who the men are but what the measures are. Is it not essential that we should keep clearly in view the fact of those substantial powers and the need for adequate safeguards against their abuse, whoever the individuals exercising them?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is right, as ever, and safeguards are there none. My amendment mentions the Human Rights Act 1998, and I am not remotely satisfied by the Minister's statement—one could hardly call it an explanation—that the Government are satisfied that the provisions in the Bill are in accord with the Act and, therefore, the European convention on human rights. The first article of the convention covers the protection of property and states: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. It continues: The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. That is fair enough, and I would argue even before the Minister—although I do not see any signs of him wishing to intervene—that clause 4 probably accords with the spirit of the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. It gives the reassurance that powers of entry will be given to an authorised officer or constable, that a warrant must be issued by a justice of the peace and that the Secretary of State must be involved. The worry arises from clause 5, which would allow foreign nationals absolute rights of access to people's property in the United Kingdom. That must be against the spirit and the letter of the convention and the Act because there is no mechanism of accountability within a democratic framework, such as that in which the convention was cast in the late 1940s and has been carried forward ever since. The difference in substance between the approaches in clause 4 and in clause 5 mean that it is perilously close to a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998—as I contend in my amendment. I hope that we will hear more on that point.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I thought that one of the precepts of the Human Rights Act 1998 was that no individual should be deprived of his property or have his rights interfered with without due process of law. The whole point about clause 5 is that it will allow inspectors access to individuals' property without any due process of law.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Indeed, and that may be a matter to which we shall return in Committee and on Report. It is our duty as representatives of our citizenry to try to ensure that we give them the maximum reassurance that we can in terms of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

rose—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I shall give way to my hon. Friend but I do not wish to be delayed too much. I am now coming to the Bill itself, and that will be very exciting.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am waiting for that with bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brow. However, has my right hon. Friend noticed clause 5(6) which refers to a possible dispute and proceedings that might take place about whether someone purporting to be an agency inspector is actually an inspector? Apart from that opaque reference, no reference is made to possible proceedings and the legal entitlements of aggrieved parties to pursue proceedings against agency inspectors.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful, but my hon. Friend is slightly anticipating me on the matter of the mysterious certificate. I shall talk about that later, although it is unclear what reassurance it gives. However, I want to go through the Bill reasonably in order. I have little to say about clause 1, but clause 2 presents a potential problem. It states: No obligation as to secrecy or other restriction on disclosure … prevents a person voluntarily giving information to the Secretary of State if that person has reason to believe that it is Additional Protocol information. However, the ellipsis in Hansardwill show where I omitted the following words whether imposed by statute or otherwise. They appear in brackets in the Bill and seem to cause potential conflict between this Bill and other statutes referring to the law of contract. At least one of my colleagues is a lawyer who may be able to say more about the matter, but I want guidance from the Minister. Is there any substance to my suspicion that a statute that protects contractual confidentiality or secrecy—between institutions or between a person and an institution—might collide with what seem to the overriding provisions of the clause? Could that problem be resolved? I am not clear about what happens when there is a conflict between the absolute requirements of different statutes.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The courts will resolve it.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is an eminent lawyer, but his remark is uncharacteristically unhelpful. I am not sure that it is good enough for the courts to resolve the matter. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is going to an important international convention where he will rub shoulders with people who will ask how Britain is getting on with implementing the protocol. Is it satisfactory that he will tell them that everything is fine with the Bill, apart from matters to be resolved by the courts? The hon. Gentleman will not know how the matters will be resolved, and is unlikely be happy with that. However, perhaps the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs will help us out.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The House may be interested to know that I married a Neath girl, but she is not the present hon. Member for Neath. Article 15 of the additional protocol requires the agency to maintain a stringent regime to ensure that there is effective protection of information. However, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is right: ultimately, the matter will be resolved by the courts.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Government have some serious questions to answer about their international obligations. I am not sure that it is good enough that Ministers attending international meetings to give an account of the Government's commitment to this protocol and to all the treaties that precede it will have to admit that the British courts will resolve any conflict that arises. What if the courts resolve the matter in favour of the statute requiring secrecy and confidentiality rather than disclosure?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

By the time that the courts determined that statutory law of contract took precedence, a person could have been sentenced to two years' imprisonment—the clause 9 penalty for failing to provide information under the Bill. However, might not that person find later that the courts resolve the matter in his favour under statute law?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That strikes me as all too possible. It is another potential intrusion on a person's human rights. Conflicts as to which Act overrides another will be institutionalised in our law.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that the courts would decide the matter. Does that mean that our domestic courts could decide whether an international treaty should take precedence when a matter of secrecy is the alleged excuse for non-compliance? What about the courts in other signatory countries that are not independent of their Governments? I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the Minister on that.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is right. His remarks raise a series of questions about the different approaches in different countries. Some countries have democratic accountability and independent judiciaries, but many other signatories to the protocol may not. Clause 3.1 states: The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description and to give such supplementary particulars as may be so specified. What sort of regulations does the Secretary of State have in mind? That is a broad provision. We need some idea of the regulations before we can consent to the Bill. The reassurances given in the early subsections of clause 4 include the involvement of a justice of the peace and of the Secretary of State, who is an elected person accountable through collective responsibility. The clause also requires that a warrant has to be issued that gives powers only to authorised officers. All that is very reassuring, but clause 4(5) deals with the powers of those authorised officers, and again I feel the need to tread delicately. There are at least three hon. Members present whose expertise in matters electronic is legendary, so I shall be careful about what I say. My next question is directed to those of my hon. Friends who know about these matters. Clause 4(5) deals with the powers of an authorised officer who enters premises under the authority of a warrant under this section and, as set out in clause 4(5)(c), that power is to require any information which is held in electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be reproduced in a form in which he can read and copy it What if no person able to access information held electronically is available to perform that task? My knowledge of electronics is scant to minuscule, but do not most systems have a security code or a provision that mean that only a certain number of people can gain access? What if the person who knows the code is not available?

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Perhaps I can enlighten my right hon. Friend. I think that he has just put his finger on a reason for one of the apparent anomalies that he identified earlier—the need to give notification in advance that an inspection is to be made. It would then be held to be unreasonable if the granting of access were not forthcoming. I thought that my right hon. Friend was going to say that the provision gives no indication as to how the inspector will know whether any such electronically held information exists. Surely the inspector will simply be relying on the candour and good will of the person who has squirrelled away the information in cyberspace.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I knew that someone would come to my rescue, and it demonstrates why I should not dwell on it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How does an authorised officer, an inspector or anyone else know what is contained within a system that is extraordinarily complex and may contain different levels of security? How will they know what to look for, or how to exercise the powers provided in clause 4(5)(c)? I have a simple question on clause 4(6), which the Minister may be able to answer now or, if not, subsequently. Does the term A constable who enters premises also cover other ranks of the police? If not, the provision may be unduly restrictive.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I think I am right in saying that "constable" covers every rank of the police, from constable up to chief constable. They all serve in the office of constable. I have indications from elsewhere in the Chamber that that is right.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. That allows me to put that matter immediately to rest, which brings me—

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I was just coming on to sex. My hon. Friend is keen on that, so I hope that he will not keep me from it.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I would not like to deter my right hon. Friend from sex—indeed, I am also keen to get on to that subject. However, I am interested in the definition of "constable". We have already heard that inspectors can be other nationals. This may sound like a flippant point, but it is not meant to be. In law, does a constable always mean a British constable, or could it mean a gendarme, a Schultzmann or an officer from any other country? Does it have to be a British police officer?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Or a military policeman, perhaps. I will leave others to answer that. I suspect that it will be the sort of police officer with which we are familiar. However, the authorised officer could be any of the agencies or individuals that my hon. Friend mentions, because that is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. We will come in a moment to clause 5, where the real horrors begin. Clause 4 is the reassuring clause, about which we are supposed to feel comfortable. I want to touch on the intriguing and, to some of us, odd provision that no constable shall search a person of the opposite sex. That may seem self-evident; it may go beyond political correctness. I am sure that it is about gender and other modern things that we are supposed to be keen on. However, it raises practical difficulties. Will the gender of the people on the premises who will be held to account under the provisions of the protocol always be known before a warrant is exercised? Or will the officers, constables or authorised officers always have to go in multi-sex mode? These are real and practical requirements. As with giving notice, I am worried that this could, in some circumstances, inhibit the proper execution of the responsibilities under clause 4(7). A woman police constable—if we are still allowed to say that—may not be available. It may not always be possible to have people of all genders available. I do not know how many genders there are supposed to be these days.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Or of all sexual orientations.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Perish the thought. However, real, practical difficulties could flow from this apparently politically correct provision.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The problem could perhaps be partially solved if we changed some of the rather sloppy drafting of clause 4(6) which refers simply to a search. I recall that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or other Home Office legislation, search was subdivided into intimate body searches and those which merely involve the removal of a jacket or outer garment. Perhaps if the word were more precisely defined, the sex of the person conducting a superficial, non-intimate search might not be so important.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I have been in the House long enough to know not to be led too far down such a track. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was intending to be helpful, but I will leave it to him, with his vast knowledge and experience of these matters, to explore the possibilities of intimate searches or the concealment of nuclear bits and pieces on or in the body. It is not a matter for me. I am coming perilously close to the conclusion of my remarks. I say that so that whoever follows me can get in the mood. It may seem odd that I shall not be dwelling excessively on clause 5, to which I now turn my attention. Clause 5, which is the most contentious part of the Bill and causes us the most concern, has already been referred to quite extensively during our exchanges and interventions, so I do not need to gild that particular lily. It is self-evident that clause 5 will cause the most concern. I argued earlier that its provisions may well cause a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. That notwithstanding, it gives the agency unlimited powers to allow foreign nationals to come into this country on an automatic visa. The Government, who represent us and are supposed to protect us, are signing away their power to prevent a foreign national from coming in under the aegis of the agency, which has enormous powers under clause 5.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Does my right hon. Friend see a possibility of conflict if one of the inspectors, allowed in on a year-long visa, is found to be doing something improper when he is not inspecting, and the Government wish to expel him, as we normally do when unacceptable espionage is carried out? Difficulties could arise if it were claimed that, according to the protocol, his visa could not be withdrawn.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yes, that gives rise to a series of consequential questions on how far the agency inspectors may be covered by diplomatic immunity. Are they simply foreign nationals to whom a visa has been given for the purposes of the protocol and the Bill, or do they have an overriding and superior diplomatic immunity of a kind to which my hon. Friend alludes? I do not know the answer to those questions. The Minister may be able to tell us. This is the sort of matter to which we shall want to return in Committee and on Report. These examples serve to illustrate why the Bill needs this thorough examination. I have been only superficial so far, of course. The really thorough examination must come, perforce, in Committee and on Report. That is another reason why the Minister will have to tell the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he may have to disappoint his colleagues at this important international meeting by saying that, regrettably, the matter is still under close parliamentary scrutiny.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has passed on from the immunity question. However, I am sure that he will recall in the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, when it was set up, that article 15 on privileges and immunity states: The agency shall enjoy in the territory of each member such legal capacity and such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions. There are also other provisions about capacity, privileges and immunities.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. Friend has confirmed our worst fears. We are adding privilege upon privilege, access upon access and right upon right. This appears to be outside the control of the Government who, for the time being, represent the people of this country. Clause 5(4) and (5)—which deal with an authorised officer or constable accompanying an agency inspector—may seem reassuring, but the word "may" is included. I would have preferred "shall". We need the maximum reassurance, and to weaken the provision in this way could give rise to greater concern.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is not the concern otherwise that the use of the word "may" in clause 5(5) could conflict with the requirements of clause 5(7), and we would not want an internal contradiction within one clause of this significant Bill?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend's forensic and analytical skills are unsurpassed. I have identified sufficient contradictions within the protocol to cause concern, and we are now teasing out contradictions within the Bill. Thank goodness for proper parliamentary scrutiny. If, by some ghastly mistake, the Bill—in its previous incarnation as a private Member's Bill—had been passed, as it had been disgracefully suggested, without proper scrutiny, goodness knows what would have happened. On the face of it, clause 5(6) should provide reassurance, but fails to do so completely. It says: in any proceedings any question arises whether a person at any time when purporting to exercise powers under this section was or was not an Agency inspector, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State stating any fact relevant to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. We do not know when that certificate will be available. Will it become available automatically, before the agency inspector begins his task? Will it be made available by the Secretary of State during the inspection if a query arises? Will it be available subsequently? If it is available only subsequently, it will be no use whatever, as there is no point in looking for the Secretary of State's approval afterwards.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Is not the answer contained in the clause, where it says If in any proceedings any question arises? Surely that presupposes that the certificate will be called for only if there has been a challenge to the credentials of an inspector, which would delay and undermine the efficacy of the inspection.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend may be correct, and the Minister will have to look at this again. All Bills are carefully drafted, and each word has meaning and significance. However, the implication is that, if a matter arises during the inspection, a certificate may be required, suggesting that the Secretary of State would have to provide a certificate during an inspection. Those of us with even a glancing knowledge of Government know that that is unlikely. The danger is that this invalidate the inspection process. We are back to the paradox of the Bill. The protocol and the Bill give the most enormous powers not only to domestic institutions—which at least have a degree of accountability and are subject to the force of the law—but to these strange and foreign institutions, manned by foreign nationals, who will come to this country and will be unaccountable to either the democratic or judicial process. On the other hand, we have apparent weakness, deficiencies and lacunae in the protocol and Bill which may undermine the effectiveness of the proposal. The Bill is a mess, and the more I look at it, the more doubts I have. I hope that, even if the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, it will want to examine it closely in Committee and subsequently.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I shall try to offer some guidance to the House in accordance with "Erskine May". Second Reading debates are intended to deal with general principles. I have given the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—and other right hon. and hon. Members who have intervened—considerable leeway. However, those interventions which go into detail are matters for the Committee stage, when the House is entitled to the closest scrutiny of any proposed legislation before it. We will now proceed on the basis that we are dealing with the general principles of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you expect, notwithstanding the helpful guidance that you have just proffered to the House, that, where a point of detail is of concern to a Member to such a degree that it will affect his or her judgment as to the merits of the principle of the Bill, it is legitimate to raise such an inquiry, either via a speech or through an intervention?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

It is always a matter of proportionality. It is perfectly in order to flag up a point that might require detailed examination at the appropriate stage of the Bill. It is not in order to have that detailed scrutiny of a small point or a sub-clause at Second Reading. "Erskine May" is quite clear; we should deal with general principles.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it would have been enormously helpful to me had you given it earlier. During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I was fretting that my speech was far too general, and I was beginning to worry that you would rule me out of order. I have therefore spent a little while trying to get the details that you now say I do not need. I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) kindly referred. As he said, the Committee is carrying out an inquiry into weapons of mass destruction, which is highly relevant to the matter before us. I am at a disadvantage, because whereas the hon. Gentleman will have been given by the authors a number of documents—to which he has, quite properly, referred—much of the paperwork that I have received is covered by the rules of the House. That means that I cannot refer to them without being in danger of disclosing confidential information that has not yet been published by the Select Committee.

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

he matters that I read out earlier were from the written evidence given at a Select Committee meeting. I was not quoting evidence given to the Select Committee orally, which has not yet been disclosed.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I as not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was disclosing confidential information. I was saying that I would find it difficult to follow his helpful points and references to publicly available information. The difficulty is mine, not his. I am not sure what is confidential and what is not. I have heard everything, whereas the hon. Gentleman has heard only that part that is public. I am sorry that the Minister did not explain why the Bill should have been given priority by the Government over other parliamentary business. I regularly read in the newspapers, and hear it said around the Palace, that the Government are pressed for parliamentary time, but we have been offered no explanation of why the Bill has been given priority. It has been hanging around for a couple of years without appearing urgent, so why has it become urgent now?

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I pologise for having missed the early stages of this debate, but I am disturbed to hear that the Bill has been attempted systematically over two years or so. We have been told that the UK would be one of relatively few signatories to the additional protocol, which suggests that the Government were once anxious that we should sign it before virtually anyone else.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall come to that point in some detail, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He should keep it in mind that only eight countries have signed up to the protocol, and he will see why I think that figure relevant when I come to discuss the countries involved.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

There is a stronger case than the one my hon. Friend is making. During the past two years, the strategy behind the non-proliferation and test ban treaties has become flawed. India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons. It is easy to disappear into the minutiae of individual clauses in Second Reading debates, but we should be rethinking the entire purpose of the Bill to see whether we can do something to stop proliferators by mechanisms other than this failed one.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Exactly so. I shall return to that point when I have concluded my response to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who suggested that there had been regular attempts during the past two years to pass the Bill through the House. What he did not hear earlier was a discussion of how few attempts had, in fact, been made. The Bill was tried as a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Putney, which is why that hon. Gentleman made such a helpful speech explaining his position. In two years, the Government's best effort lay in having a private Member divert himself from whatever he felt passionate about to pilot through a Bill that they wanted to shuffle through late on a Friday afternoon. Nothing much else has been done. Only eight countries have signed the protocol, suggesting that it is not all that important. The Minister has made no effort to tell us what has suddenly changed.

Malcolm Savidge (Labour, Aberdeen North)

I want to correct an impression possibly given by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in his intervention. Neither India nor Pakistan is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a fact from which we should surely draw the lesson that it would be better to strengthen and widen the treaty.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The hon. Gentleman reinforces what my right hon. Friend said. However, we must tackle a point on which the Minister conspicuously failed to touch—why this matter should be given priority over others.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

May I remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) that I negotiated the test ban treaty on behalf of the United Kingdom? Both that treaty and the non-proliferation treaty have a proliferation aim built into them. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that India and Pakistan have not signed, but those countries provide a clear weather vane as to the direction in which the world is going and the ineffectiveness of the treaty.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am most grateful for that intervention. It adds some facts to the debate on a matter on which my right hon. Friend is an expert. It also puts me on notice to watch my step, as I am standing just behind a walking expert—

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

A sitting expert.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I take the point.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I may be able to resolve the uncertainty in my hon. Friend's mind about why Ministers attach such importance to a speedy passage of the Bill. Would that not assist the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he makes his scheduled visit to an important international conference, at which he will mix with extremely important, highly respected, influential figures from the international community? Obviously, the hon. Gentleman will wish to display his wares in the form of a successfully passed Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but while I am many things, some of which I hope he approves of, I am not a clairvoyant. My ability to answer questions about what may be in the mind of the Minister is therefore minimal, if not non-existent. I must leave it to the Minister to tell us what he has in mind.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

This conversazione between my hon. Friend and others worries me enormously. A few centuries ago, Parliament was prepared to declare civil war because a Government sought, through the Ship Money Act 1640, to allow inspectors to enter private property. The Government sought to edge this Bill in through the private Member's Bill procedure, then sat on it for two years before introducing it on a quiet Monday afternoon. What is going on? Where are our parliamentary colleagues who should stand up for the freedom of the individual to prevent the Executive—and foreigners—from invading their homes?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a splendid attempt to do exactly that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is a champion of the rights of the individual, will do the same while I cheer him on.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Before my hon. Friend moves on from the point made about the Minister of State going to the international conference to mix with others who have signed the protocol, ratified it and brought it into law, may I point out that the Minister will in fact mix with very few people—the presidents of Uzbekistan, New Zealand, Monaco, Jordan, Japan and Indonesia, and the Pope?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I wish to talk about that point in due course, but having been to Uzbekistan with the Foreign Affairs Committee and tasted the flavour of its regime and heard something of its President, I sincerely recommend to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he take some precaution against being bored out of his mind, and that he not pay too much attention to any assurance that he may be given.

Tony Colman (Labour, Putney)

The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that the UK Government should take a lead in ensuring that the world becomes less threatening, and in non-proliferation. On that basis, does he support the Minister's visit to the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty; and will he provide leadership by ensuring that we ratify the protocol ahead of the meeting?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

All will be revealed to the hon. Gentleman as my speech unfolds. Other Members may not know what I do about the hon. Gentleman, and they may have thought that he was about to say something about the Holy See. He and I both happen to be Methodists, so I knew that he would not, but I shall clarify my position on his other points in due course.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I hope that my hon. Friend will not be seduced by the invitation offered by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), and that he will agree that it is much more important to scrutinise the Bill properly and get it right than to boost the ego of a minor, junior Minister who is footling off to a ridiculous conference to exchange ludicrous pleasantries with lots of other self-important people.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have disclosed to the House the masonic-like links between myself and the hon. Member for Putney, but the Methodist Church is a broad one; its members have many points of view. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on many matters, and that is one of them.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is not conducting Question Time. He should make some progress on his speech because other hon. Members are trying to catch my eye.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me your protection from my hon. Friends and from the hon. Member for Putney. I shall indeed do as you suggest. Although the Bill is largely non-controversial—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Nonsense.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I said "largely". There are, none the less, some huge reservations about the detail of the measure that have not yet been mentioned. We need to consider three matters before deciding whether the Bill should be read a Second time. The first partly relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Putney. Will the Bill help to make the world a safer place? We must face up to that question and we must put the measure into the general context of nuclear control and disarmament. Before we vote, we must ask whether the measure is key to making progress on those matters or whether it is merely a sideline.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill must be a sideline? It is not merely that only eight countries have ratified the agreement, but other countries such as the Russian Federation, the Ukraine, Belarus, North Korea, Libya, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran—

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.