| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath: I understand the Minister's point, but if he were to change the word "may" to "shall", he would combine the duty with the power and incorporate both into British law, which seems a more satisfactory solution.
1.30 pm
Mr. Lloyd: I am certainly not a lawyer--indeed, it is many years since I ceased to pretend to be a logician--but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that although I understand what he says, it simply is not necessary to do as he suggests. The shadow Foreign Secretary failed to grasp the fact that the Bill is not the
only way in which the Ottawa convention will be brought into operation. His inability to grasp the simple arguments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces was the source of his confusion. The law and the other procedures that bring the convention into operation already exist in other fields, or will exist under international law on ratification of the treaty.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly asked about parallels. The convention on chemical weapons, for example, uses exactly the same form of words in respect of fact-finding missions. In respect of the convention on chemical weapons or the landmine legislation, it is inconceivable that any British Secretary of State would seek to place himself outwith the spirit or, more important, the letter of international law. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that what is in the Bill is sufficient. We could go beyond that, but I assure the Committee that it is not necessary.
I refer the hon. Member for Salisbury to clause 27, which defines a fact-finding mission as
Mr. Cohen:
The Minister says that what is in the Bill is sufficient. Verification is important, and there must be freedom of access if the treaty is to work and if there is to be confidence that it will work.
I note what the Minister said about the Bill's provisions being in addition to a duty to allow access under the Ottawa convention. In that case, I do not understand why he cannot accept the amendment. However, I assume from his comments that there would be no circumstances in which a Secretary of State would not allow access under the treaty--I see that he is nodding. He used the word "inconceivable" in that context so, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. George Robertson:
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Last year, one of the first visits I made as the new Secretary of State for Defence was to Bosnia, to visit our troops in multinational division south-west. I do not think
that it was an accident that my Ministry decided that that should be my first visit. I have graphic memories not only of the service men and women who were serving there and of the dedicated and risky job that they do for us, but of Bosnia's physical and political scenery. That scenery has improved considerably since my visit, providing great testimony of the necessity both of that intervention and of the subsequent role played by our armed services--in stopping the fighting, killing, concentration camps, mass rape and torture occurring on our own continent, in rebuilding shattered communities and in allowing the Bosnian people the breathing space to grow their own new democratic institutions.
Flying over some parts of Bosnia in a British Army helicopter, one's breath was taken away by the physical beauty of the countryside. Flying over Glamoc, for example, one saw dazzling scenery of green spaces and tiny villages. One could not help being attracted to that country. However, one could not land in a helicopter or walk round Glamoc, as it had been riddled and contaminated by the thousands of anti-personnel landmines that were left behind by the warring factions as a legacy--which will continue for many years--to the conflict.
Seeing Glamoc brought home to me the depth of the problem, even more so than when I stood in a minefield outside Mostar, dressed in the cumbersome equipment--of which I am continually reminded by the replay of embarrassing pictures--that is required to enter a minefield. People continue to live and daily to risk their lives and limbs in Glamoc, as its surrounding countryside is covered with undetected mines.
There is therefore an unfinished mission that--for people living in Bosnia and in so many other countries around the world--is not only political or visionary but real and practical. That is why this debate, the Bill and our ratification of the convention are all so important, not only for us and the United Kingdom's credibility but for all humanity. I feel a burning sense of duty to ensure that the campaign continues, not only to ratify the Ottawa convention ourselves but to persuade countries that have not yet signed it and are still manufacturing, exporting and sowing anti-personnel landmines to stop those activities.
Although the House will pass the Landmines Bill in only one day, we have had a full and vigorous debate. The Opposition have highlighted some points of interest, contention and debate. However, they have taken themselves to a logically ludicrous position, essentially telling us that we should not ratify the treaty. They appear to be saying that only by amending the treaty--and that is impossible--can we give our armed forces safety and security. I do not find that a particularly practical position, but they have retreated from opposing the Bill, and I welcome their co-operation in taking the Bill so quickly and at such short notice.
Our success in dealing with the measure in one day demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue in the House, and that must be welcome. It is also a fitting tribute to the enduring memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the work that she did, more than so many others, to draw attention to the evil effect of anti-personnel landmines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a moving speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead
(Mr. Cohen). My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) referred to the parallel universe that the Opposition appear to inhabit in respect of this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) also made powerful speeches. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who is not in his place, used his Army experience to some effect. He articulated a practical view that will be recognised by many soldiers, including the vast majority who now believe that anti-personnel landmines are a form of warfare which must be abandoned and outlawed for ever.
The debate has underlined the fact that the Government's policy on anti-personnel landmines that we adopted last year has been the right one. I am glad that we have been able to fulfil the pledge that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I made 13 months ago when we came to power and took instant action on the issue. When it comes into force, the Bill will ensure that no British soldier will ever use an anti-personnel landmine again; no British company will be allowed to manufacture anti-personnel landmines; no one anywhere will ever be able to acquire anti-personnel landmines from a British source; and our operational stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines will be eliminated.
We have also ensured that members of our armed forces cannot be prosecuted for planning and operating alongside those from states for which the use of anti-personnel landmines remains legal. That is the right thing to do, and I welcome the recognition that the House has now given that today. Of course, any such protection for our armed forces will become increasingly unnecessary as more states sign and ratify the Ottawa convention. In that context, I welcome the announcement by the United States Government of their intention, at least in principle, to sign the Ottawa convention by 2006. That will provide a big boost towards our final goal. It also shows the inexorable public pressure that is now rightly exerted on all Governments.
There is still a long way to go. No country can measure its achievements merely by reference to its own efforts. The problem of anti-personnel landmines is a global one which requires a global effort. Achieving complete elimination of anti-personnel landmines remains a key objective for the Government, and we will use all our influence and endeavours in the international scene to exactly that effort.
Regrettably, some states do not feel ready or able to sign the convention. For those that have not, the quoted reasons are primarily connected with national security and the need to develop alternative capabilities. However, a comprehensive ban must be exactly that; the Ottawa convention provides a goal to which we have to encourage all states in the world to aspire. That means working closely with those states, recognising their security concerns while persuading them not to rely on such weapons, but to seek alternative and better means of providing their security. It may cost money; it may cause apprehension; but what is that compared with the human costs that are otherwise involved?
"a fact-finding mission under Article 8 of the Ottawa Convention".
That is important because a fact-finding mission under this part of the Bill is restricted to the Ottawa convention definition, which is agreed by states that are party to the convention. It could not lead to the problems mentioned today. I hope that I have managed to reassure the hon. Gentleman and those who asked him to express their concerns. If that reassurance is not adequate--although it seems that the hon. Member for Salisbury is indicating that it is--I invite him and those who raised matters with him to come back to me. I shall then attempt to set their minds at rest. However, I assure the Committee that it is not necessary to pursue the amendment, and that all the concerns expressed are covered in the Bill.
1.34 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |