| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the Government review the situation, will they take into account the essential test—which should be, in my view, that the sport in question should reach the widest possible audience?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is of course an important objective. We all want to see an opportunity for as many people as possible to appreciate on television the sport that they follow. But the House will recognise that the listed events—such as the World Cup Finals, the Olympic Games and, each year, the FA Cup Final, the Derby and Wimbledon—are of a different order from the regular playing of test cricket every year, with many days devoted to it. Test cricket may have 25 or even 30 days in a season. That is the basis of the difference, and why we are mindful of the fact that putting Test cricket on the restricted list would present some difficulties.
Lord Addington: My Lords, would the Government agree that if they were to interfere with the sport's revenue funding they would be under an obligation to fulfil that hole in the funding? In this case, I believe that about £20 million has been quoted. Also, would they agree that if we had all been able to watch England lose again, through lack of investment, there might not be quite so much fuss now?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, success certainly breeds success and we want to see English cricket build on this year. But the noble Lord is right; a judgment in favour of a government subsidy for cricket might not
11 Oct 2005 : Column 158
meet with universal approval, particularly as other sports would make their claims too. The restricted list is based upon accrued practice over a number of years and we stand by it.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government are entirely behind the plans announced by the chairman and the director-general of the BBC to move the BBC sports department to Manchester, where it will have excellent access to Old Trafford?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am being invited to support both Manchester and Lancashire from the Dispatch Box and I may reflect a certain prejudice. The move is a matter for the BBC, but it will be welcomed in many quarters.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
3.7 pm
Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to pursue their policies against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in the light of the lack of progress at the recent United Nations summit on that issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the summit delivered worthwhile reforms and commitments, many inspired by the vision of the high level panel, of which the noble Lord was a member. The United Kingdom worked extensively for proactive language on non-proliferation that would spur international efforts to strengthen the regime. We were therefore disappointed that this did not prove possible. Despite this, almost all states continue actively to support the various non-proliferation instruments. The United Kingdom places a high priority on non-proliferation and will continue to seek practical solutions to non-proliferation challenges in all relevant international fora.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and take the opportunity to congratulate Dr Mohammed El Baradei and the International Atomic Energy on the well merited award of the Nobel Peace Prize. The Minister's remarks were somewhat general, but does he agree that it is now necessary to give a higher political profile and much greater urgency to work on an international scheme that would guarantee nuclear fuel supplies to civil nuclear users in good standing with the IAEA and thus provide the crucial underpinning to the very necessary moratorium on the construction of new uranium enrichment and reprocessing plants?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I associate the Government and, I am sure, the House with the congratulations to Mohammed El Baradei and the IAEA. It is a well merited Nobel Peace Prize. I hope it
11 Oct 2005 : Column 159
will emphasise the international community's commitment to non-proliferation. I accept what the noble Lord said. There are some interesting proposals in the area of establishing real or virtual banks for nuclear fuels with some element of international involvement. But it is not a straightforward proposition: governments and experts have been trying to find a solution to the problem for decades. Each reactor has its own fuel and no one of them could work as a fuel bank. There would be a number of fuel banks. But I do not want to make progress on these difficulties sound impossible. They are complex but I believe that if we work on them we will find a solution in order to resolve the problem that the noble Lord has illustrated.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government have not taken action to implement the 2003 decision by the Council of Ministers to set up a weapons of mass destruction centre to oversee the work of the Union, Commission and Council? The decision has been repeated on a number of subsequent occasions and the lack of action has been noted by Sub-Committee C of the European Committee in this House. Why have the Government so far done nothing to advance this case?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is not true to say that no work has been done to advance the more general issues of European security or, indeed, to get a co-ordinated view on non-proliferation. We achieved a co-ordinated European view during the United Nations summit. Efforts have been made in the areas where we believe we can make the most progress. The progress—whatever the difficulties of the recent conference—is illustrated by the fact that most nations have remained committed to non-proliferation. Observance of the international treaties has been successful. That is where the work has been done to considerable effect.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the proposal from the Nuclear Threat Initiative organisation, of which the former Senator Sam Nunn is the leading figure, for exchanging highly enriched uranium research reactors in Africa for low enriched uranium reactors, with the IAEA making that fuel available? The Minister will recognise immediately that that would sharply reduce the opportunities for proliferation of highly enriched uranium from an entire continent.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, we are aware of that initiative. It is an initiative that could bear a good deal of forward study. That can often be taken as a euphemism for not doing a lot over a considerable period, but I do not wish the House to think that that is what I am saying. A few such initiatives being advanced will give us the greatest security across continents in the control of fissile materials.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Carnegie Endowment which argued
11 Oct 2005 : Column 160
that the two threats—thermonuclear as distinct from chemical biological weapons—should be separated rather than confusingly combined as WMDs?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I understand why expressions such as WMD have such currency. People regard all terror weapons as appalling threats whose consequences are wholly untenable. In a general sense, the practicalities of international treaty making mean that those things are dealt with distinctively. There is a significant difference between the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the test ban treaties in relation to nuclear weapons, the biological and toxin weapons convention and the chemical weapons convention. In international treaty making there must be precise answers to precise problems. The distinctions made by the noble Lord make huge sense in ensuring that that is what happens.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the Foundation for Peace being promoted by Oscar Arias, the former president of Costa Rica? He is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize because of drawing the wars in Central America to a conclusion. Are the Government aware of that foundation's objectives and what are they doing about it?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I acknowledge that I heard about the foundation relatively recently, and have asked for further information. It sounds an interesting initiative and I confess that although I do not yet have a full briefing I am eager to have one.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister happy that we are aligning our policy with that of the United States, given that the United States is risking the future of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty by discussing the testing of new weapons and micro nuclear weapons, which would endanger the future of the NPT?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Government have taken the view—this is the baseline from which we should start—that we will adhere strictly to our international treaty obligations. It is obviously a matter for the United States to consider what sort of weapons systems and assets in that area it believes are essential to its security.
In the United Nations discussions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, drew our attention in asking the Question, I heard it argued that the United States was responsible for the lack of progress. Some authoritative figures said that the United States was not responsible for the progress. I was there and heard a number of other nations taking views that were wholly destructive of a sensible process. Many of them should share the joint international odium for not making the progress that Kofi Annan rightly insisted should have been made at that conference. We have to find routes to take us further forward, not least to ensure that international treaty obligations are observed in the way that we intend to observe them.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |