| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.11 am
Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): I am delighted that, today, in one fell swoop, the Bill will complete all its House of Commons stages and be passed unanimously by the House. There is no conceivable reason why any hon. Member should vote against it.
I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for International Development and all their ministerial colleagues on all their efforts in the campaign against landmines and on their desire to ratify the Ottawa convention. It is another manifesto promise on which the Labour Government have delivered and will continue to deliver as we destroy the United Kingdom's stockpile of landmines.
Compare the record of the Labour Government with that of the last Tory Government and the miserable, shabby, weasel words of the shadow Foreign Secretary this morning. My only slight regret is that we did not introduce this legislation some weeks ago while the UK still held the presidency of the European Union, because it would have been one of the highlights of that presidency.
As chairman of the British group of the Inter- Parliamentary Union, I am proud of the role that the IPU and our group have played in the international campaign over the past four years. I pay tribute to my predecessor,
Dame Jill Knight, now Baroness Knight, who campaigned vigorously in support of the resolution that was eventually carried unanimously by the IPU conference of some 130 nations, which called for a global ban on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I am proud to have played a part in supporting that campaign at successive IPU conferences.
The Government have been one of the world leaders in the campaign, and the UK was one of the first nations to sign the Ottawa convention last December. We must all honour Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his Government for their initiative in introducing the Ottawa convention. I also thank all my colleagues who have signed my early-day motion 1387, which calls for this very legislation.
The Bill enables our Government to ratify the Ottawa convention, which comes into effect only when 40 nations have done so. Why do we need to ratify the convention? We need to do so because there can be no more flagrant example of man's inhumanity to man in the modern world than the barbaric practice of planting anti-personnel mines, which kill 800 people and maim another 1,200 every month of every year. Since 1975, more than 1 million people have been killed or injured and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, many of them were women and children, the most vulnerable members of society.
Estimates may vary, but one is that more than100 million landmines are scattered indiscriminately throughout 62 countries, adversely affecting the economies of many of the poorest nations; preventing or delaying the development of agriculture and industry, the growing of food and much needed construction of good clean water supplies; and killing valuable livestock.
Expensive and scarce medical supplies are used up, and all civilians, including volunteer aid workers, are at risk. They will continue to be so as long as one landmine exists anywhere in the world. Those weapons will be capable of destruction for as long as they are there. Enormous sums of aid money that could be used for much more positive purposes have to be diverted to mine clearance. That is another worrying aspect of the situation.
I strongly suggest that all hon. Members read the report by the International Committee of the Red Cross entitled "The Worldwide Epidemic of Landmine Injuries", which graphically describes the horrific effect of blast and fragment mines. They will then realise only too well why we need this Bill. It is not only limbs that are blown off. Genitalia are destroyed and people are horrifically maimed. Reading that report would bring tears to hon. Members' eyes. I commend it to the House. Again, I praise the Government for all the humanitarian aid and assistance that they provide to people in need. I appeal to the Government to do more as soon as they can.
The Ottawa convention is not the end of the matter--nor is it perfect. It is only one step forward. Ratifying it and bringing it into the national law of each country as soon as possible is essential. Our Government have a vital role to play in persuading China, India, Russia and the United States to sign and ratify the convention.
Other nations such as Turkey and several African states refuse to support the convention. Perhaps the giving of political co-operation and aid should be linked to the
recipient ratifying the convention. I ask my right hon. Friends to consider adopting such a policy, so taking another step forward.
Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan):
Does my hon. Friend recognise the valuable role played by the North Atlantic Assembly in trying to convince some of those member states of the need to ratify the Ottawa convention?
Mr. Marshall:
I am only too happy to do so, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his activities in the campaign.
I congratulate all those countries, organisations and individuals who are making financial and physical contributions to the anti-landmines effort. An especially welcome new initiative is the movement towards partnership arrangements between Governments, private companies, organisations and wealthy individuals to raise extra funds for the campaign. I hope that those will be given every encouragement.
The treaty will need to be rigidly enforced and must be properly monitored. In addition, it will need to be reviewed from time to time to tighten any loopholes, to expand its aims, and to persuade even more countries to sign and ratify it.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife):
I commend the Government for having found the means and time by which to offer the House the opportunity to ratify the Ottawa convention--or, perhaps more correctly, to pass the legislation that is necessary in order that the Government may ratify it. Although I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by the shadow Foreign Secretary about the consequences of clause 5--to which we shall come in due course--I do not share his view that there is inadequate time. If the House approaches this matter sensibly and reasonably, the Bill can pass all its stages in this House today and can be sent post haste to the other place, in the hope that it can then pass quickly into our law.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I like to think that the consistent pressure and support that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have directed towards the Government has encouraged them to proceed. Although I do not subscribe to the "We thought of it first" school of politics--well, not much--it is right to put it on record that it was at a Liberal Democrat
conference on 20 December 1995 that we first passed a motion calling for a ban in almost exactly the same terms as those of the convention.
The purpose of the legislation is clear and unambiguous, and it has the overwhelming support of the House. It allows us to play our part in the elimination of a scourge on the lives of innocent civilians, who are often among the poorest people in the world, by prohibiting a military procedure that is now largely discredited.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |