Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

At the request of several male Committee members and to ensure that there are no distractions from the clause-by-clause scrutiny on which we are about to embark, I will allow male Members only to divest themselves of their upper garments.

Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings of the Standing Committee on the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords], the Committee do meet—

(a) on Tuesday 10th April at five minutes to Ten o'clock and half-past Two o'clock, and

(b) from Tuesday 24th April, on Tuesdays, at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock, and on Thursdays, at five minutes to Ten o'clock and half-past Two o'clock;

(2) the proceedings on the Bill shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 24, Schedule 2, Clauses 25 to 28, Schedule 3, Clauses 29 to 34, Schedule 4, Clauses 35 to 37, Schedule 5, Clause 38, Schedule 6, Clauses 39 to 42, Schedule 7, Clauses 43 to 50, Schedule 8, Clauses 51 to 54, Schedule 9, Clauses 55 to 83, Schedule 10, Clause 84, Schedule 1, new Clauses, new Schedules;

(3) if not previously concluded, the proceedings of the Committee on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at Five o'clock on Thursday 3rd May.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook, and accept your comments as an invitation to take off my jacket, although other upper garments will remain in place. All Committee members look forward to working under your careful stewardship and the usual impartial, relaxed and humorous style in which you conduct business. I hope that this will be an enjoyable Committee for all members.

The Bill is sizeable, legally complex and technical. Its purpose, as was made clear in the excellent Second Reading debate, is to enable Britain to sign up properly to the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court. In moving the programme motion, I should make it plain that there is some urgency about the matter, hence we are programming the Committee to ensure that there is proper consideration and debate of all the clauses, with flexibility to allow the Opposition to table searching amendments, to which we look forward.

There is a sense of urgency because other countries are moving ahead. The Swiss Parliament recommended on 13 March that its Government ratify the Rome statute, and the Croatian Parliament passed a law of ratification on 28 March. There is urgency also because we have been heavily engaged in the formative stages of the court and negotiating the details to get it established. We want to be one of the early signatories—among the first 60.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

I am not sure that I follow the logic of the Minister's argument. In support of his assertion that the Bill is urgent, he cites the fact that Croatia and Switzerland have signed up. He must understand that there is a huge difference between Croatia and Switzerland and the United Kingdom. They are not players in the international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement efforts in which the United Kingdom is engaged; they are bit-part players at best.

Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)

I could read out a list of all 29 countries that have ratified already, but I am simply letting the Committee know the latest signatories. We want to be the next signatory, or at least to be in the first 60. There are many other significant players in the 29, but we need 60 to get the court up and running. We want to be involved at the formative stage so that we can help to shape the court's future. We can be proud of the pivotal contribution that the UK has made to the court's creation. The programme motion, which we discussed last night when setting out the timetable, should allow us to achieve our objectives.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

The Minister makes the case for getting on with the debate, which I assume is central to his argument about the programme motion. However, we should be clear that the reason that we need to get on is to ensure that this country enjoys the same degree of influence as San Marino, which has a population of 27,000 people.

Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)

We have greater influence than San Marino; we have certainly had more influence on the court's formation.

The programme motion enables us to discuss the Bill for longer than Opposition amendments were debated in the other place. There is more time to discuss the amendments. We are being flexible. The real aim is to allow serious scrutiny of the clauses. We want the Bill to be given careful consideration because we need to get it right. We are all agreed on that. We should not need to feel any pressure of time. The purpose of the programme motion is to enable us to get on so that the Bill does not run into the sand and so that we can be one of the first signatories. That is important because we have significant influence in these matters.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Good morning, Mr. Cook. I echo the Minister's words in welcoming you to the Chair. In our topsy-turvy world, today is a parliamentary Thursday even though it is a Tuesday, so we have an early start this morning. I should like to clarify one point with you: I understand that we have half an hour for the debate on the programming motion; is that half an hour from the start of the debate, or from the start of the Committee?

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

There are 25 minutes remaining.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Fine. Obviously it is timed from the start of the Committee. I just wondered, because you kindly allowed the gentlemen to remove their jackets—

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

Order. Perhaps I should clarify: 25 minutes was the maximum time left. It is now 24 minutes, and counting.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Cook. I just wondered whether pronouncements from the Chair were included in that time.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister of State and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to learn that, although the Minister made what he believes is a case for the motion that was put before the Programming Sub-Committee, we object to programming motions per se. Quite frankly, his justification that there is some urgency to this matter is beyond belief: the Bill could have been introduced at a much earlier stage in this Parliament. However, it has been introduced at the 11th hour, which will cause problems, and in the usual fashion—that is, accompanied by a heavy-handed programme motion that will not give the Opposition the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in a civilised manner.

The Bill could have been brought to fruition by agreement between the parties. As we have said repeatedly, both in the other place and in debates in the Chamber, there is no difference between us on the principles behind the Bill: we all want the perpetrators of vicious and wicked crimes to be brought to justice. However, there are issues and details on which we need clarification and reassurance. There are also people outwith Parliament who want to be able to set their daily routine against the certainty of the Government's backing and the words that Ministers utter during examination of the Bill. Such people include those who serve in the armed services, on whom we rely so greatly.

Programme motions are sometimes used to restrict debate. I do not suggest that today's motion is such a case, because it makes allowance for 10 sittings if all goes well. However, 3 May is an arbitrary date for the finish of the Committee. One can only assume that it fits conveniently with any timetable that the Government have for a general election on 7 June—that is not the best kept secret in the world. The fact that there is a programme motion does not guarantee that there will be 10 sittings or that there will be enough time for debate. I do not say that that will be so, but there is a possibility that it might be.

On Second Reading when challenged by me on this point the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), an eminent Member of Parliament who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, admitted that

``Of course there is no guarantee of 10 sittings, but the Government would lay themselves open to criticism if they did not give adequate time for debate.''—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 289.]

In fact, even though the Government have tabled a programme motion, it is not in their power to guarantee the time allowed, because there are forces outwith the Committee and the Government's control that might impinge on the time for debate. The calling of a general election, for example, is in the hands not of the Government, but of one man—the Prime Minister. He may decide to call an election early and thereby curtail debate on the Bill. A state of emergency or other event could impinge on the Bill's passage. Far be it from me to suggest this, Mr. Cook, but the Chairman of the Committee might unaccountably be detained and not show up. I believe that there is no mechanism in the Standing Orders of the House for reclaiming lost time on the debate and scrutiny of any Bill.

Another depressing aspect of the timetable motion is that it has second-guessed any amendments that may be tabled and any discussions that hon. Members may wish to have. The motion was put in train long before amendments were tabled by the Government, those on the Back Benches or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats. I do not believe that they have a representative here.

Mr Tony McNulty (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Harrow East, Labour)

What about Crispin?

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The Whip suggests my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but I think not—the Whip's eyes probably need testing.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

More like his brain.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Do not tempt me.

Programme motions are tabled before there has been a chance to see what amendments have been tabled, and long before you, in your wisdom, selected amendments, Mr. Cook. The whole proposition of a programme motion is bankrupt if it infringes on the parliamentary freedoms of scrutiny and debate.

The timetable certainly gives me the impression that the Government do not expect to amend the legislation in this House. That shows arrogance, because several amendments had to be tabled by a Minister in another place to remedy imperfections that were discovered during the Bill's passage through that House. The motion does not give much time for the Bill to pass through its remaining stages, or, if an amendment is accepted in Committee, for it to return to the other place in the normal fashion. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this timetable has been chosen and why 3 May has been chosen so arbitrarily.

Something else that is novel to me, and perhaps to the rest of the Committee, needs to be explained: how does the programming procedure dovetail with the procedure for the Bill that is just starting its passage in the Scottish Parliament? The Bill was laid before the Scottish Parliament only on 4 April—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—but that Parliament, with its Liberal-Labour coalition, has gone off early and is now in recess.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

That is where they are.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

My hon. and learned Friend suggests that no Liberal Democrat Member is here because they have gone on holiday early, but that is uncharitable to say the least—

Mr Tony McNulty (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Harrow East, Labour)

It is true.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The Whip says that that is true, and he would know.

The Scottish Parliament will remain in recess until, I believe, after return the Westminster Parliament returns, although the Scottish Bill must go through a rather elaborate procedure. If I understand it correctly, when the Bill and the necessary accompanying documents have been introduced, several stages follow: stages 1, 2 and 3 procedures, reconsideration of Bills passed, amendments to Bills, and Crown consent. The procedures laid out in the guide to the governance of Scotland show that there may be considerable time between the stages. What is the timetable for the Scottish Bill? I want to know how it will pan out—whether it is subject to a timetable, whether there will be restrictions on its scrutiny in Scotland, and how it will emerge and meld with the Bill's passage through the Westminster Parliament.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee what would happen if the Scottish Parliament made changes to the Scottish Bill but, because of the Government's steamrolling the Westminster Bill, no changes were made in this place? What would happen in that case—especially if a general election intervenes, the Conservatives win and we decide to drop the proposal?

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I would not presume to say that the next Conservative Government would drop the Bill. We would try to ensure that the Bill was in an acceptable form before it went through Parliament and we would not stint on debate. What happens if the Bill published on 4 April is amended?

Mr Mike Gapes (Ilford South, Labour/Co-operative)

In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), will the hon. Lady state categorically, without ambiguity or weasel words, whether the Conservative party is in favour of the ICC? Yes or no? Is it in favour of our being among the first 60 countries to ratify?

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman rises to the bait rather early in our proceedings. He has been in the Chamber on many occasions when I have spoken on the matter, but if he wants to cast aspersions on my standing, he can. He asks me to make a commitment to be undertaken by the next Conservative Government, but we will let the hon. Gentleman know on 8 June. That is not a no—the hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever but he will not trap me in that fashion. I will not rise to the bait. He knows that I approve the principles behind the ICC. I do not hang my hat on being among the first 60 as assiduously as he does, but his hypocrisy in trying to trap me into saying something—

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

Order. Such a direct accusation is not permitted in Committee. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the word ``hypocrisy''.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Of course I withdraw the word ``hypocrisy'', Mr. Cook. I do not want to offend the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) but I wanted to make my point that the Bill could have been introduced much earlier in the Session, as I requested many times on the Floor of the House. The Government have introduced the Bill far too late. The hon. Gentleman is laughing, but I know that he agrees with me.

Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside, Labour/Co-operative)

This is an extremely important Bill and we are entitled to know whether the Conservative party, Her Majesty's Opposition, supports it. The hon. Lady must tell us so, clearly and unambiguously.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The hon. Lady has not attended as many debates on the matter as I have and I refer her to Hansard. In view of the time we have left, I prefer to speak to the programme motion than to play silly and juvenile cat-and-mouse games about what we do and do not believe. I am trying to make a serious point about dovetailing Scottish and Westminster legislation. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have been interested in that.

What happens if amendments are made in Scotland that do not marry up with the Westminster Bill? Is the Scottish scrutiny process undermined by the fact that the passage of the Bill through this place might occur more rapidly than that of the Scottish Bill, even though the two are supposed to dovetail? Because of the programming motion, this Bill—which commits the United Kingdom to the process—could be enacted before the Scottish Bill has passed all its stages. If the Scottish Parliament has the free and fair ability to scrutinise the legislation, it will be able to amend it so that it contradicts or conflicts with the Bill.

The question is whether Scotland is merely rubber-stamping what happens in this Parliament. If so, that would undermine the process of devolution. Why has that not been brought forward earlier and why has the timetable motion not been linked to the Scottish process? Would it not have been more sensible for the Scottish process to have taken place in advance of the Westminster process, to make sure that there was no conflict? Will the Minister say how long it will take the Scottish Parliament to examine the 29 clauses and six schedules in the Scottish version of the International Criminal Court Bill. In other words, what co-ordination is there between the Scottish authorities and the Foreign Office on the matter? The Minister's motion seriously affects the timetabling and the way in which we scrutinise the Bill.

I am sure that my hon. Friends will have something to say on the matter and I hope that the Minister will have time to answer their points. The restriction of the Committee timetable works against allowing the Minister to give a decent answer. I have taken only the half the time available.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I would like clarification. The programme motion states that new clauses and new schedules will be considered at the end of consideration in Committee. However, new clause 6 appears for consideration under clause 1. Why is new clause 7, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, not considered alongside new clause 6?

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

That point of order has already been the subject of debate and we have agreed to discuss it again on Monday 23 April, prior to the next full sitting of the Committee.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. It is important that, once we are a couple of sittings into the Committee, the Programming Sub-Committee on 23 April reschedules the limited time available for issues that the Opposition want to discuss. That would restrict the role of Government members of the Committee, but I am sure that they will make their views known to members of the Programming Sub-Committee. If the programme motion states that new clauses are to be considered at the end of Committee consideration, on what grounds and on what advice did you include new clause 6 for discussion today?

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

I am surprised that that point is being raised. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is normal practice for new clauses to be taken towards the end of Committee stage. He sat in on the Programming Sub-Committee last night and heard the exchanges that took place. Since then, those discussions have informally been taken further, and the Programming Sub-Committee will meet again on 23 April—[Interruption.] The Clerk, thank heavens, reminds me that selection of amendments is a matter for the Chairman and not for the Committee. I have stated clearly my readiness and willingness to meet on the 23rd—to come back early, in fact—to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's anxieties are addressed.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

Mr. Cook, you have explained why new clause 6 appears where it does on the selection list. The discussion that we have had about when new clauses should be considered and the difficulty of squeezing them into the short time available goes to the heart of the discussion about the programme motion and why it is so unacceptable in principle. For Bills such as this one, to which the Opposition agree in principle, our position is to accept the principle by not voting against the Bill on Second Reading but instead voicing concerns later, during detailed scrutiny. However, if the amendments that we desire are not accepted, I understand that Her Majesty's Opposition will vote against the Bill on Third Reading. We made that clear on Second Reading.

The discussion of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill occurred in precisely the same manner. More than 50 clauses of that substantial piece of legislation—similar in size to the International Criminal Court Bill when one takes into account the number of clauses in the Bill and the schedules—were not discussed in Committee. The Committee was left in disorder after an official protest by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). That is an example of how not to conduct programming of a serious issue that deserves proper scrutiny by the House of Commons. That is why, in principle, the conduct of programme motions is wrong.

I do not know whether 10 sittings will be too many, too few or about right, but the Government are stabbing a wet finger in the air. It is not good enough for them to say that the legislation is needed urgently. The Bill would not have been considered if we were having a general election on 3 May, which was the date that had been pencilled into Labour diaries for four years. As we know, the decision to postpone the election was only taken the Friday before last. The Sun was informed in time for its Saturday edition—

Mr Mike Gapes (Ilford South, Labour/Co-operative)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I seek your advice. As I understand it, a decision was taken and voted on in both Houses to postpone local elections. However, no decision has been taken about general election dates. Is it in order for the Opposition to refer constantly to the timing of the general election when no legislation about it has been passed?

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

Order. The point is specious, because it has no bearing at all on the programme motion, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

If the hon. Member for Ilford, South believes what he said, he will believe anything, but that is probably one of the requirements of being a Government Back Bencher these days.

The Government have not exactly demonstrated a need for speed in respect of the Bill. It was mentioned in the 1999 Queen's Speech yet, in April 2001, we had still to consider it. It would have been lost if there was to have been an election on 3 May. I am against programming resolutions in principle, but this motion, like the one on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, is self-defeating and foolish.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

The Minister of State said at the outset that the Bill is complex and highly legal, and he emphasised its importance. He is aware that it is hugely important to our armed services that it has substantial implications—

It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to paragraph (6) of the Order of the House of 9 April relating to Programming Sub-Committees.

Question agreed to.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. It is obvious that we did not have sufficient time to debate the programme motion. I wanted to speak before you put the question, Mr. Cook, but I shall be grateful for your advice whether we can ask for an extension to the debate. I raised some substantive issues about Scottish legislation and the Minister appears to be prepared to answer my genuine questions; however, we lost time because of specious points of order and other interventions.

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

I should make it very clear that the 30 minutes allowed for discussion and debate of the programming resolution is laid down in Sessional Orders. I do not have the power to extend the debate. If the points made by the hon. Lady related to parts of the Bill that we have yet to debate they could have been the subject of amendments, which were not tabled. I identified one specious point of order, but others were raised that we could well have done without. We should now proceed with the line-by-line examination of the Bill.

Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. We have had our debate on the programme motion and although I am disappointed that the Opposition did not allow me time to reply, it is more important to discuss the Bill than to discuss whether we should discuss the Bill. However, clause 80, which I hope we shall reach, deals with the issue of bringing together the Bill and the Scottish Bill. If we reach that clause, we shall have that debate. I hope that that lays to rest the worst fears of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

I thank the Minister for his clarification of matters relating to the point of order.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

On a different point of order, Mr. Cook. On a previous occasion, during Committee stage of the International Development Bill, the Chairman was unfortunately unable to attend a sitting; an emergency Chairman was found, but time scrutinising the Bill was lost. There were two Chairmen of that Committee but you, Mr. Cook, have a long standing record as the sole Chairman of this Committee. As time was lost for scrutiny of the International Development Bill through no fault of members of the Committee, I wish to know whether arrangements have been made to ensure that there is always a Chairman standing by, so that we do not lose any time scrutinising the Bill.

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

I am somewhat surprised that a Member of such experience as the hon. Lady should make such a trivial point. The simple truth is that the second Chairman on any Committee is not standing by; there are provisions within the rules for a senior Member of the House to be delegated at short notice, should that be necessary. However, I have no intention of becoming known as the late Mr. Cook, and I have no intention of dying without giving notice.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I am not sure whether it is within your gift to say that you have no intention of dying without notice. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made the perfectly reasonable point that if our debates are to be constrained by the programme motion, we should not lose time because an act of God prevented your chairing the Committee.

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

I do hope that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging my knowledge of the Standing Orders of the House. They make provision for a senior Member of the House—perhaps even one as senior as the hon. Gentleman—to take the Chair should it become necessary in an emergency. Is that clear?

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

I am most grateful, Mr. Cook. It is clear.

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

Then let us proceed. I remind the Committee that there is financial resolution in connection with the Bill; copies are available in the Room. I remind Members also that adequate notice should be given of amendments and that, as a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments. Clause 1 The ICC and the ICC Statute