|
Clause 2
Implementation of future revisions to
CFE Treaty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Spring: This clause raises in some ways the most important issue in the Bill. It empowers Governments to make future changes to the Act by statutory instrument, rather than by bringing them before the House. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said that, on this occasion, we would not oppose such a move, he made it clear that it was stretching our good will, as we regard such procedures as inadvisable. I fully appreciate that future changes to the treaty may prove necessary, and that they will in turn have to be incorporated into UK law. However, the passage of the Bill has not yet detained either House for very long, so bringing future changes before the House would not exactly overburden us.
We seek again a clear and unequivocal reassurance from the Government that they will not cite the Bill's exception to the rule that treaty matters are for primary legislation as a precedent for future modifications to other treaties. As my hon. Friend said, we remain convinced that primary legislation is the correct way to deal with treaties and I hope that the Minister will unequivocally state that that is his view, too.
Mr. MacShane: This debate is a re-run of the points that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire raised on Second Reading. Statutory instruments must be used to allow small changes to technical rules to apply to inspection regimes in the UK. I do not think that many members of the Committee or hon. Members in the House at large believe that primary legislation would be needed each time such changes were required. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has confirmed that it considers that level of delegation of control to be appropriate. As the clause sets out, the power to allow future amendments to the Act to be made by Order in Council rather than by primary legislation will be limited to amendments relating to inspections only.
I assure the Committee that the so-called Ponsonby rule, under which the House will be informed 21 days in advance of any proposed statutory instrument measures, will apply. We do not want to sneak through ratification or introduce anything that the House cannot properly consider.
In all honesty, I cannot definitively say what this or any future Government's position will be on
Column Number: 8
international treaties when they are transposed into domestic law, whether by primary or secondary legislation. However, I give the Committee my assurance that the secondary legislation that may be necessary to give effect to changes to the Act will be limited to amendments relating to inspections only.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Short title, commencement and extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Spring: We find the clause uncontentious, although, again, I would like some clarification from the Minister. The clause allows the Secretary of State to ratify the treaty as and when he wishes, although I note that, on Second Reading, the Minister reassured the House that the Ponsonby rule would be adhered to.
9.15 am
The Minister explained that ratification and implementation of the Act would occur when other states had ratified as well. Has the Minister any indication as to when that might be? We have no desire unnecessarily to constrain the Foreign Secretary, or to limit his freedom to ratify at the most appropriate time for the United Kingdom. By the time ratification and implementation occur, might not the international scene have changed dramatically again? As a rule, is it not more appropriate for the House to consider such legislation at the time when ratification and implementation are envisaged? I would welcome the Minister's comments.
Mr. MacShane: Again, the hon. Gentleman raises important points. The decision as to when to bring an international treaty for transposition into domestic law is a matter partly of parliamentary timetable and partly of willingness of the usual channels to find a moment when that can be done. It is right to bring this into our law, to bring us into compliance and to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the House of Commons is taking its international commitments seriously.
However, as I said on Second Reading—the point was underlined by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness—the common position of all NATO member states is that we will ratify when we are satisfied that the other principal states, chiefly Russia, are complying fully with the treaty's obligations. Clearly, it is disappointing that Russia does not seem likely to meet its Istanbul commitments. I hope to attend December's ministerial meeting in Maastricht of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, when we shall have to consider the matter. It is a subject of concern among the new neighbours of the European Union—Ukraine, Moldova and Romania—because Russian troops are on Moldovan territory guarding the ammunition dump at Colbasna.
There is a problem in Transnistria with Mr. Smirnov, who is not acting under the rules of the Moldovan Government. I recently discussed the issues
Column Number: 9
in Kiev and in Bucharest. Russia and Georgia have not yet agreed on the closure of the Russian base at Gadauta, or on the time scale for the withdrawal of Russian station bases at Batumi and Akhalkalaki. We have a major problem—it is no use ducking the issue—with the failure of Russia to come into full compliance with the obligations of the treaty, because it is a condition on all NATO member states that that must happen before the treaty can come into full effect.
It is right that the House should enact the appropriate domestic legislation so that, when that
Column Number: 10
moment comes, we can immediately set about entering into full compliance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Committee rose at eighteen minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Conway, Derek (Chairman)
Barrett, John
Dhanda, Mr.
Havard, Mr.
Joyce, Mr.
McKechin, Ann
MacShane, Mr.
Moore, Mr.
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Perham, Linda
Pickthall, Mr.
Robertson, Hugh
Spring, Mr.
Todd, Mr.
| 
