---

Weapons of Mass Destruction (EUC Report)

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Bowness on securing this debate on the European Union Committee report on WMD. Unfortunately it has been a timely debate in the wake   of the terrorist attack on our capital last week. I take this opportunity to commend once again our emergency services for all their work and the British public for their resolve to continue with daily life and take the terror out of terrorism. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, we live in a time of great danger. The report made interesting and, indeed, alarming reading. I thank the chairman, my noble friend Lord   Bowness, for the report and the committee members for all their hard work, especially when they received evidence beyond the remit on which they were to report. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his detailed comments as a member of the UN high-level panel. What steps are the Government taking to ensure the circulation of the report around the authorities of the European Union? The risks of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons cannot be over emphasised, as the noble Lords, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Giddins, pointed out and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, highlighted with chilling clarity with Graham Allison’s projection that nuclear terrorism is inevitable. We on these Benches fully support the high priority given to the prevention of proliferation, particularly in cases such as Iran and North Korea. We welcome the joint declaration made on 29 June by the European Union and the US on their co-operative efforts to address the global challenge of terrorism and the proliferation of WMD. However, as my noble friend Lord Bowness said, we must recognise the shortcomings of the use of WMD as a term. As the committee has highlighted,"““the potential effects of WMD, including wider economic repercussions vary widely with circumstances as do opinions about the probability of the use and the scale of harm to be expected””." A WMD and terror, as we saw on 11 September, can be a plane full of people, or as last week showed, an Underground train or bus full of people. I have some issues on which I would like to press   the Government. Her Majesty’s Government’s response to the report, on the surface, reads well. I am sure that the Minister will reiterate this in his reply. The Government agree with a number of the committee’s recommendations. However, I put it to the House that that agreement goes only so far and does little to explain the detail and timetable to which the Government will work, especially in light of the greater leverage of the UK presidency of the EU and the G8. Like my noble friend Lord Bowness, I am surprised that her Majesty’s Government have said so little about the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, which some have described as a flop. Can the Minister justify an alternative to that view? In terms of financing resources, the committee feel that this is currently,"““inadequate to enable the EU to fully implement the WMD strategy””." The Government promise more resources under the common foreign and security policy enabling long called for work to counter the proliferation of small and light arms which help the cycle of violence, especially in Africa and Latin America. They promise resources to meet current international commitments and the Kananaskis G8 summit pledges that are lagging, to support the IAEA and OPCW, the BTWC, Dr Giannella’s office and the WMD unit in the commission. Will the Minister explain when these resources will be forthcoming? What exactly will go to each of these bodies or commitments, and where from? When do the Government envisage that all these commitments now made will be fulfilled? What are the contingency plans should they not be met? The decision to make resources a,"““high priority when the authorities of the EU consider the deployment of new human and financial resources, or the redeployment of existing ones””," does indeed seem to support what my noble friend Lord Bowness has suggested regarding the Government’s rather complacent attitude. Surely, with the UK presidency, we can speed up this process. Will the Minister alter this view by providing some firm deadlines and data on what will be provided in line with their response to the committee report? I commend the work that Nato does on this issue and fully support the need for a co-ordinated, joined-up approach between organisations and EU members. Transparency and political will are necessities in all areas of the EU, not just the WMD strategy; however, I do not agree that a constitutional treaty would necessarily be the best way forward. I would also question the current situation regarding the EU WMD centre. How will Her Majesty’s Government ensure that it will not duplicate work already done by NATO? What plans are there for the project’s progression, if any? The report has merely touched the tip of an iceberg with regard to WMD. I recognise that, and welcome the commitments—which I hope the Minister will reiterate—to commission an in-depth review of the strategy, and priorities for its implementation. As always, however, we call for less talk and more action. There are recommendations in the report that can be put into action relatively quickly should the Government choose to do so. I would have thought that choice needed no thinking about in the current political climate.