First let me tell the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that the Bill was debated in another place, given a Second Reading and passed to this House. It was considered non-controversial in the other place, and came to this House—and to tonight's debate without a single amendment attached to it. That is why the Committee stage was taken so quickly.

We have not "rattled through" the Bill; this has been an open-ended debate. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to debate the Bill in more depth, he and his hon. Friends could have table amendments that could have been discussed in detail. They did not do so. That cannot be the fault of the Government, the business managers or the system that the hon. Gentleman has disparaged; it is the fault of those who scrutinised the Bill. If the people who scrutinised such Bills want to debate them, they can do so. I say that with the greatest respeect, recognising the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of the subject. I think that he will agree, however, that the Bill—although it touches on the wider arms control debate—is a specific provision within that context, and that the Government are therefore not to be blamed for dealing with Second Reading in rather narrow terms.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to clause 2. The clause is drafted to reflect the challenge regime, as referred to in the CFE treaty. Where the word "may" applies, rather than the word "shall", it also applies to all the signatories of that treaty—and, presumably, to any legislaton that the Soviet Union may have to implement to give effect to the treaty.

The wording allows an inspected state party to refuse a challenge inspection. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that any Back Bencher in the Soviet Parliament whom he might contact would not find it easy to challenge his Government to give a definition of what the national interest constitutes. It is simply not possible to do that and to receive a sensible, coherent and comprehensive reply.

What I can say is that in practice we would expect to refuse only very rarely, and then only for overriding reasons of national security. It must be important, however, that the right that the treaty confers on all state parties—without which it would not have been completed and signed, and which is not restricted—be retained in the clause.