We should not allow the Under-Secretary's unsatisfactory responses to go by without comment. The hon. Gentleman employed the formula that Ministers usually adopt when they do not want to answer a plain, straightforward question. In the context of national security, they say that what can and cannot be inspected cannot be defined. However, the Government will be asked about inspections by other members of the treaty and they will have to respond. After all, the Government will be bound to be open. We are discussing future legislation that arises from a treaty that has been signed by the Government and that will provide access to inspect and verify arrangements for the mutual inspection of arms. The mumbo-jumbo that the Minister produced about the national interest not allowing any definition of what can be excluded, for example, is not acceptable, given the changes that have taken place throughout Europe.

At an earlier stage, hon. Members spoke of the cold war and the threat from the Soviet Union. None of us believed in that threat for very long and it has now been proved that it was a hollow one. It was—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may chortle, but the threat has been proved to have been hollow. Many of us, since elected to this place, have been saying that the threat from the Soviet Union was an illusion that was developed by the Conservatives and the military to justify wanton, wasteful expenditure year after year when we should have been spending the money on hospitals, schools and infrastructure. The moneys should not have been wasted on things that we could never have used. Yet it seems that the old hollow attitude is still prevalent.

The Soviet Union is no longer an enemy. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) went to the Soviet Union and said that its leader was a bold, courageous man. She did not stay in office long enough to make further visits to Moscow to sustain the friendship that she developed and, in any event, it was not necessary to do so. After all, we are friends with the Soviet Union now. Indeed, all the eastern bloc countries have changed. We do not need to indulge in the constant repetition of cold-war language or to argue that we must retain our enormous secrets because any indication of their nature to an elected body, such as the House, would prejudice the safety of the United Kingdom. It was not true then and it is not true now.

I hope that the Minister's comments do not show a lacklustre attitude on the part of the Government in he implementation of the treaty, because any treaty that is a step towards reducing our commitment to arms expenditure, towards building up confidence and towards providing verification that we are carrying out our part of the treaty is a step in the right direction. That is why we are supporting the treaty tonight.