| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.15 pm
My hon. Friend wants the use of landmines to be a war crime. My right hon. Friend said that he, as an individual, and, more important, as the Foreign Secretary, would have no difficulty accepting that the use of landmines and the other activities referred to in the Bill should be included in the definition of a war crime. However, I give my hon. Friend an important warning. Significant members of the international community have not signed up to the Ottawa process and are not yet ready to sign up to an alternative agreement, possibly through the conference on disarmament or wherever we pursue the establishment of a universal ban on landmines. In that climate, the setting up of an international criminal court is not more, but less, certain.
I caution my hon. Friend that, although I can offer him genuine sympathy for his ambitions and can reassure him that this matter does not cause the Government any problems, it would create real and practical problems if we were to pursue it at an international level. At least in the short term, it would make our ambition--which I know my hon. Friend shares--to establish the international criminal court less likely. In those circumstances, although I can offer him sympathy, I cannot offer him a way forward.
I hope that I have responded to my hon. Friend's remarks and that he accepts that the intentions that he wants to serve are either not achievable through his amendment or have already been achieved. The need to give the court real power and the ability to pass exemplary sentences has already been accepted, so I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Cohen:
I accept the points made by the Minister, although I am disappointed at the conclusion he reaches. He said that the Explosive Substances Act 1883 was the benchmark for the 14-year maximum sentence. He referred to the carrying of explosive substances, but other aspects of the 1883 Act carry a life sentence.
My key point is about making the laying of landmines a war crime and for it to be within the international criminal court's remit. I favour the establishment of an international criminal court and I want it to deal with the issues to which the Minister referred. It clearly must cover genocide, rape of women as an act of war and the use of children in war. It must take action against the perpetrators of a holocaust. The use of landmines is a holocaust: it is a holocaust by drip. Individual after individual suffers. As Boutros Boutros Ghali said, landmines are a weapon of mass destruction in slow motion.
I hope that the Government will not lose sight of that point. Although they feel the need to give the international criminal court a more limited remit, I hope that they will, in the future, reconsider this matter and make the laying of landmines a war crime, which is what I favour. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Cohen:
I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Article 8.14 of the Ottawa convention states that any state party that is subject to a fact-finding mission "shall" grant access. However, the Bill states that the Secretary of State "may" authorise access for such a mission. That allows the possibility of may not, but "shall" allows no such negative. The implementing legislation should contain the same word as the convention. Can the Minister assure the House that there are no circumstances in which authorisation would not be given to a fact-finding mission in the United Kingdom?
Fact-finding verification missions are important, and I would not want the Government to block them or to encourage a formula that would enable other
Governments to block them by claiming a UK precedent. The amendment is simple and I hope that it will be accepted.
Mr. Key:
I should like to raise a point on behalf of the Halo Trust. It was approached by a Canadian human rights organisation which demanded minefield information on current tactical minefields between two countries. When the trust suggested that that was not an appropriate inquiry, the organisation quoted the Ottawa convention with veiled threats. The Halo Trust is not sure whether the rules for fact-finding missions and information and records apply only to fact-finding missions between states under article 8 of the convention or whether it also applies to humanitarian organisations. Furthermore, the trust is not sure whether the rules also apply to missions whose representatives speak to UK nationals working overseas. Some paragraphs suggest that that applies only in the United Kingdom.
The Halo Trust has raised the point because if missions visit humanitarian mine-clearance programmes overseas and demand minefield information, UK demining staff--for example those working for the Halo Trust--would perhaps by law have to hand over the information, even if it were privileged. For example, it could have come from local military commanders as a result of trust being built up between Halo Trust staff and local commanders in countries that had not signed up to the ban. If those commanders thought that non-governmental organisation workers were passing privileged information to the UK, they might not allow any access by international humanitarian staff. Therefore, the Bill's effect might be to reduce humanitarian mine clearance, which I am sure is not the intention. In some mined countries that are emerging from civil war, the distribution of privileged information about mines by international NGO workers could be considered even as espionage.
This is a slightly difficult area and the Minister of State may not be able to respond to it immediately, but I should be grateful if he could perhaps respond by letter, so that we can pursue the matter--[Interruption.] I am delighted that he says that he can do it now.
Mr. David Heath:
I support the amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for--
Mr. Cohen:
Leyton and Wanstead.
Mr. Heath:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was thinking Leytonstone. I listened carefully to him, as I always do, particularly with the news that his lineage has been carefully researched over the past few weeks and the news of the bearers of his surname. He demands even greater respect.
It seems an odd anomaly that the word "may" is used in this context. Surely, Britain would always wish, under any circumstances, to co-operate with a fact-finding mission under the convention. When I say that, I do not question the Government's motives, and I do not want to hear the claim that we had earlier that we are undermining a positive move towards ratification of the Ottawa convention and everything that goes with it. However, the fact remains that a future Government may not be so well disposed. A future Secretary of State may have some scintilla of doubt about the application of the convention. In drafting the legislation, we must leave no area of ambiguity.
Curiously, reading further on in the clause, the word "shall" is used on a number of occasions. Once the Secretary of State, under subsection (1), has decided to issue an authorisation, the content of that authorisation is no longer a matter for his consideration, because the word "shall" appears in subsequent subsections, including, incidentally, the subsection on the overriding of the control functions of constables, which provides that they shall provide assistance. That is wholly welcome.
I am curious--perhaps the Minister of State can help me on this--whether the same provision applies to Customs and Excise officers and to the security services. I assume that, when he responds, he will say that the provision is analagous to that of other Acts that provide similar international obligations. However, perhaps he will explain why this word "may" is used, or do something better than that: accept the amendment, so that we have no doubt as to the position of not only this Government, but any future British Government in respect of the Ottawa convention.
Mr. Tony Lloyd:
I have no intention of rushing to the defence that this is an attempt to subvert the Bill. The amendment is a different proposition from the clear wrecking amendment that the Opposition tabled under clause 5. I accept that the motivation of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and the hon. Member for Frome--
Mr. Heath:
Somerton and Frome.
Mr. Lloyd:
I want to give the hon. Gentleman the Frome and not the Somerton. I accept that he, the hon. Member for Salisbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) genuinely want to serve the purpose of the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |