---

Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention

States Party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) met in Geneva, 5–9 December. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and promote common understanding and effective action on the content, adoption and promulgation of codes of conduct for scientists. The States Party to the BTWC agreed by consensus a politically binding report where, inter alia, States Party stressed the need to undertake activities at the national and international levels and recognised the following: (a) while the primary responsibility for implementing the convention rests with States Party, codes of conduct, voluntarily adopted, for scientists in the fields relevant to the convention can support the object and purpose of the convention by making a significant and effective contribution, in conjunction with other measures including national legislation, to combating the present and future threats posed by biological and toxin weapons, as well as by raising awareness of the convention, and by helping relevant actors to fulfil their legal, regulatory and professional obligations and ethical principles; (b) codes of conduct should reflect the provisions of the convention and contribute to national implementation measures; (c) a range of different approaches exists to develop codes of conduct in view of differences in national requirements and circumstances; (d) codes of conduct should avoid impeding scientific discovery, placing undue constraints on research or international co-operation and exchange for peaceful purposes; (e) science should be used for peaceful purposes only but has the potential to be misused in ways that are prohibited by the convention, and therefore codes of conduct should require and enable relevant actors to have a clear understanding of the content, purpose and reasonably foreseeable consequences of their activities, and of the need to abide by the obligations contained in the convention. Further, States Party recognised that all those with a responsibility for, or legitimate interest in, codes of conduct should be involved in their development, promulgation and adoption and agreed on the value of codes of conduct applying not just to scientists, but to all those involved in scientific activity, including managers and technical and ancillary staff. On the content of codes of conduct, recognising the principles listed above, States Party agreed on the importance of codes of conduct being: (a) compatible with national legislation and regulatory controls and contributing to national implementation measures; (b) simple, clear and easily understandable both to scientists and to wider civil society; (c) relevant, helpful and effective for guiding relevant actors in making decisions and taking action in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the convention; (d) sufficiently broad in scope; (e) reviewed regularly, evaluated for effectiveness, and revised as necessary. On the adoption of codes of conduct, recognising that it is important to build on and co-ordinate with existing efforts and avoid imposing burdensome and duplicative measures, the States Party agreed on the value of: (a) demonstrating the benefits of codes and encouraging relevant actors to develop codes themselves; (b) using existing codes, mechanisms, frameworks and bodies as far as possible; and (c) tailoring adoption strategies according to the needs of each relevant sector. On the promulgation of codes of conduct, recognising that codes of conduct will be most effective if they, and the principles underlying them, are widely known and understood, the States Party agreed on the value of continuous efforts on promulgation through appropriate channels. States Party were also encouraged to inform the Sixth Review Conference in 2006 of any actions, measures or other steps that they have taken on the basis of the discussions on codes of conduct to facilitate the conference's consideration of the work. The preceding meeting of experts held in Geneva in June 2005 had prepared the way for this political decision making. At this earlier meeting, levels of attendance and participation were excellent with 82 States Party contributing to international discussion and sharing of expertise on codes of conduct for scientists. States Party were also able to benefit from the input, expertise, and experience of a number of international and non-governmental organisations and science stakeholders. A multi-agency delegation represented the United Kingdom. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser, made a well-received presentation on his code of ethics for Government scientists, which is currently being piloted across Government. UK officials also made four presentations on different aspects of the subject. Ambassador John Freeman, on behalf of the United Kingdom, led the international work on this subject in 2005 and chaired both the meeting of States Party and the meeting of experts. I am sure Members will join me in expressing appreciation for the work and efforts of Ambassador Freeman to achieve consensus on a report that reflected the large measure of agreement that exists on the subject under discussion. Moreover the level of active participation and engagement over the last three years of the current work programme is an indication to us that States Party recognise both the importance of the selected subjects and also the value of the work programme more generally in contributing to strengthening the convention. At the meeting of States Party, delegations also agreed the dates for a preparatory committee to the Sixth Review Conference of the convention in 2006. The preparatory committee will be held in Geneva, 26–28 April 2006. The Sixth Review Conference will be held in Geneva, 20 November–8 December 2006, with the precise dates to be confirmed by the preparatory committee. The UK is one of the three depositaries to the convention and will continue to work co-operatively, both nationally and internationally, through 2006 in preparation for a successful conclusion to the Sixth Review Conference. I will keep the House informed of developments and outcomes in 2006.