Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 8, after second `Statute', insert

`, as corrected by the following proces-verbaux of rectification issued by the Secretary General of the United Nations as depositary of the ICC Statute after communicating the proposed corrections of all interested States—

(a) the proces-verbaux of 10th November 1998 and 12th July 1999 correcting the texts of that Statute in Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish;

(b) the proces-verbaux of 30th November 1999 and 8th May 2000 correcting the texts of that Statute in French and Spanish;

(c) the proces-verbaux of 17th January 2001 correcting the texts of that Statute in French, Russian and Spanish, and;

(d) the proces-verbaux of 17th January 2001 correcting the text of that Statute in French, Russian and Spanish, and

(e) further such proces-verbaux as may have been or may be issued by the Secretary General of the United Nations, except where Her Majesty's Government upon resolution of either House of Parliament conveys to the Secretary General that the United Kingdom dissents from one or more specific corrections contained in one or more specific such further proces-verbaux.'.

I thank you, Mr. Cook, for your ruling. It was important to clarify some of the issues surrounding our scrutiny of the Bill.

I move this probing amendment to elicit some guidelines and words of wisdom from the Minister. As there is no time limit to our debates on the clause, I hope that he will have the chance to respond. The amendment is slightly imperfect; it has lost something in translation. Paragraph (a) should include ``Russian''; and paragraph (d) should not have the date ``17th January 2001'' but should state:

``the proces-verbaux of 19th July 2000 correcting the text of that Statute in Russian''.

I apologise for that imperfection, but as it is a probing amendment I hope that it will not affect the Minister's response.

The amendment will allow us to discover what procedures are available to the Government to incorporate future corrections to the texts in legislation. I shall stand corrected on the details, but I believe that since its adoption on 17 July 1998, corrections have been made to the Rome statute on six occasions. That is hardly surprising, as the document is exceedingly complex. That complexity, which is the culmination of many years' work, is, per se, an invitation for mistakes to happen. A document of such length, that is subject to such vast international negotiation, will doubtless include mistakes. It is being pored over by international lawyers, Governments and non-governmental organisations, but errors are still being found. At the start of our scrutiny of the Bill, it is natural to try to elicit from the Minister some idea of the processes available to the Government when corrections need to be made.

I have been surprised by the number of changes to the text, notwithstanding what I have said. The proces-verbaux of 10 November 1998 contained no fewer than 49 changes, which is rather a large number. Although many of them are small—a comma, a word or a capital letter here and there—others go to the heart of the treaty and require some explanation, or at least need the Committee to understand what scrutiny has been given to them.

In some cases, the process-verbaux add something. I am looking specifically at article 124, which is an especially sensitive part of the treaty, as it is the opt-out article. When France was considering how it would approach the treaty, it sought a different solution to its problems, as it perceived things, and secured the inclusion of an opt-out—article 124, known in the statute as the transitional provision. France used article 124 to make a declaration that when it becomes party to the statute it will not accept the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the crimes listed in article 8 when they are allegedly committed by its nationals or on its territory. That provision will last for seven years, unless France withdraws the declaration sooner.

The provisions of article 124 are to be reviewed at the first review conference, which will be about seven years after the statute comes into force. France has made a declaration under article 124 which, together with its other interpretive declarations, is its way of seeking protection from those acting in bad faith. However, if we examine the proces-verbaux, we find that there is an alteration to that sensitive provision. The original text of article 124 read:

``Notwithstanding article 12, paragraph 1, a State on becoming party to this Statute, may declare that, for a period of seven years after the entry into force of this Statute for the State concerned, it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court''.

Now, following the correction in the proces of 10 November 1998, it reads:

``Notwithstanding article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2'',

and so on. So the alteration goes back to article 12. Where the original text included only the precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction that was found in paragraph 1 of article 12, namely that

``A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5'',

the correction has added sub-paragraph 2:

``In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3''.

Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) follow. These corrections may not be merely to a comma, full stop or capital letter. They can substantially alter part of the treaty, or so it would appear. I hope that the Minister will address that point.

The problems do not stop there, as at some stage additions have been made of things that must have been felt to have been omitted. There can also be removals from the statute, as the proces-verbaux of 12 July 1999 show. They made 23 changes to the text. Many of them were minor, such as removals of punctuation. However, one change in the list refers to paragraph 5 of article 99. The original text states:

``Provisions allowing a person heard or examined by the Court under article 72 to invoke restrictions designed to prevent disclosure of confidential information connected with national defence or security shall also apply to the execution of requests for assistance under this article.''

But ``defence'' is removed in a correction.

The word was obviously significant, so we must consider the implications of its removal. It is not the removal of a comma or a full stop, but a change in the meaning of that part of the article. The Minister must tell us what the implications might be for the interpretation of the statute following the word's removal, because ``national security'' is not the same as ``national defence or security''. What is his interpretation of the original wording? Why was ``defence'' removed? Why did we accept its removal? If we objected, what process was used to do so? The subject returns me to the fundamental reason why we tabled the amendment as a probing amendment. We could have put it to other uses, but we want a response on those substantive points.

We have been told that the statute cannot be altered—that it is almost set in concrete. Notwithstanding that, there is a process whereby changes that are not purely cosmetic are made to the statute. What notification does the Minister receive of them? What notification do the states that have ratified the treaty already receive? Who initiates the corrections? What procedures are used if there are any objections to the corrections and amendments? Is the Minister satisfied that the legislation encompasses any corrections made in the proces-verbaux detailed in the amendment, or any future ones that might be incorporated in the treaty?

Will the Minister also tell us what discussions he or his Department have had with Hans Corell, the Under-Secretary-General of and legal counsel to the United Nations who signed the proces? Were those discussions before, during or after the event? Can the UN issue corrections that we have to accept willy-nilly, come what may, as a fait accompli?

It has been continually inferred, even if it has not been spelt out, that the statute cannot be amended. Therefore, I need assurances from the Minister about the parameters within which we operate. The helpful brief prepared to the usual high standard by the Library gives the impression that the Government are, if not rushing, trying to use the passage of the Bill in an unduly political way, enabling them to say, ``We have done this good thing.'' We should have been happier if they had said: ``This is a good thing that we can all do together, but let us consider things properly.''

The Library brief mentions that the Government have pointed out

``that the Statute is not currently open to amendment.''

It adds:

``Some amendments to the Bill''—

in another place—

``called for ratification to be made conditional upon changes to the Statute. These were resisted on the grounds that to accept them would place the Government in an impossible situation. However, it remains open to the Government to ratify and then to introduce amendments at the Review Conference which will take place seven years after entry into force, or, of course, to delay ratification until after the Review Conference.''

Did the Minister consider delaying ratification until after the conference? I know that he has said that he wants to be in the first 60, but the delay need not prevent that. I have only his word as to the rapidity with which other countries are ratifying the treaty; there seems to be no evidence that they are tearing ahead to do so. I do not know the latest number, because the relevant website was not available this morning, but I think that about 29 or 30 countries have done so.

In the past, the United Kingdom has not acted so precipitately on similar issues. The genocide convention was not ratified until more than 20 years after its adoption. The Geneva conventions were ratified eight years after their adoption, and there was a gap of 21 years between signing and ratifying the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions. I am sure that there were extremely good reasons in each case. More haste, less speed is the maxim, is it not? This is our one opportunity to build the institution in question, and we need to get it right. If we want to get it right, I see no reason to rush matters unduly. The Minister should satisfy us that all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed.

The Government have said that to ensure that British courts can always step in before the ICC they have decided to incorporate all the ICC crimes in domestic law in identical language to that used in the Rome statute. That information is again taken from the Library brief. However, what would happen if, through the correction process mentioned in the amendment, the language in that statute were changed, while our statute was set in concrete? I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends want to speak to the amendment, but I have posed many questions to the Minister and I look forward to his response, to set my mind at rest on the question whether the administrative process behind possible continuing change to the statute is in hand.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I did not have an opportunity in the first half hour of the sitting to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook. I trust that things will go well for us all.

I hope for some clarification from the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made her case in some detail. Precision is vital, because the Bill introduces the statute of Rome into our domestic legislation, and in so doing extends jurisdiction over our citizens to a foreign body—we have done that before on other occasions. The items referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the amendment demonstrate that there has been some imprecision in language. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the thing that we are ratifying and signing up to is certain?

Our amendment may not be perfectly drafted; that is often the way with Opposition amendments—we have to do the best that we can with what we have got. However, it is important that our citizens, who may or may not become entangled in ICC proceedings, should have some precise understanding of what it is that we are giving away or not giving away. The point is simple, but I hope that the Minister can explain to my hon. Friend and me the nature of the beast that, through the Bill, we will soon get to know.

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

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was gracious enough, in introducing her probing amendment, to acknowledge that the amendment was imperfect—I think that she said that something had been lost in the translation. Tiny errors creep in, and that demonstrates the difficulty of building an international institution round an international statute.

It is important that we do not lose sight of the purpose of the Bill. The Rome statute, which was designed to set up the International Criminal Court, is an international agreement resulting from protracted negotiations that took place over years. We have tried to build an institution that aligns our languages and laws. That is not easy, and it is in the nature of international agreements that we cannot get from them everything that we want. We are not renegotiating the Rome statute—we are deciding to join it and ensuring that it is in line with our law.

This is a probing amendment that raises serious questions. It is standard practice for all treaties, once adopted, to be corrected to remove typing, spelling or translation errors. As the hon. Lady mentioned, that is done by means of the proces-verbaux, which are agreed by all the states involved. That verbal process enables them to agree on such minor changes. It is open to the UK or any other state to object to any proposed corrections. Once that process is agreed, the treaty is formally corrected.

Even when our Parliament passes domestic legislation related to international treaties, it is not usual practice to list all the minor changes, corrections and typing errors that those treaties have undergone. It is more important to ensure that the corrected treaty is right and that we agree with it. Otherwise, we would have to amend that domestic legislation every time a spelling error or a typo was found in an Arabic version of the treaty, and that would be absolutely ridiculous. The Rome statute of the ICC is no different from every previous treaty. The Rome statute referred to in clause 1 is the official version, as corrected.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I was able to obtain a copy of the Rome statute only as of December 1999. Will the Minister tell me whether any corrections have been made since then and, if so, whether they have been incorporated? Also, what happens if objections raised by the UK are not taken into consideration during the process?

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

The hon. Lady raises serious questions and I will do my best to reply. The answer is yes; corrections have been made since the statute. There were errors that needed correction, not least because of the pace of the process. On the last day of the Rome conference, dramatic progress was made in piecing together different parts of the text and errors crept in. That is why there were the many corrections to which the hon. Lady referred.

We must not forget what the treaty will do. It will build a brand new institution that pulls together a range of legal and language traditions. However, all corrections are made with the consent of the participants at Rome. I can give a practical example; the hon. Lady referred to the removal of ``defence'' from paragraph 5 of article 99. We did not object to that change because we believe that it reflects the understanding reached at Rome. Such corrections were brought to the attention of all states, which, in answer to her question, can object to them. In that case and others, they did not. We in the UK are in close contact with UN legal counsel and, indeed, suggested some corrections to improve the language and text. However, she should understand that we are talking not of substantial legal changes but textual errors that need to be typed straight.

It is not the intention of the Committee or of Parliament for the Bill surreptitiously to introduce new crimes to British legislation. That is not its purpose, and I assure the Committee that the Bill already guarantees that it cannot be used as a vehicle to bring in new legislation by the back door. As the Committee will see, clause 1(1) defines an International Criminal Court crime as one

``over which the ICC has jurisdiction''

by its statute. The term statute is defined as the ICC statute,

``done at Rome on 17th July 1998''.

In other words, the crimes covered by the Bill are only those that appeared in the statute adopted in 1998. They do not include future crimes that could be introduced into the ICC's jurisdiction by amendment of the statute.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

The Bill incorporates a substantial chunk of the statute into United Kingdom law. Will the Minister accept that there will be questions of interpretation of some of the language that has been used? What we, as a country, would see as a reasonable act of self-defence, defence of our interests or of an ally or friend, might be seen by others as aggression or a wanton act of criminality.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right. There will be questions of interpretation because that is the purpose of the legal system. However, we must get the legislation right. I emphasise to Opposition Members that there is no intention to sneak in new crimes with the Bill, and that the statute cannot be revised for at least seven years after the ICC is set up. At that point, there could be negotiations for amendment, which could include new crimes, but any amendment to the statute would not affect UK legislation. If we agreed with revisions to the statute, in particular to crimes, and wanted to introduce them into UK law, we would have to introduce primary legislation to amend the Bill. That safeguard is therefore built in. No new crimes could be created under the Bill without the issues coming back to Parliament. I hope that the hon. Lady is clear about that.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

As a point of information, is that the same process that would be entered into for Scottish legislation? What would happen if there were a difference of opinion between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments?

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

The hon. Lady made it clear in her opening remarks that we are talking about corrections, not amendments. We are not amending the statute. We are not amending legislation. We are simply talking about typographical errors. For example, something that is written in Arabic might not be quite the same when it is written in English. The English language does not have a word for everything on a par with every other language. We must therefore negotiate the wording and the language to get the text straight. That is what the amendment relates to, and that could not affect our primary legislation.

The hon. Lady mentioned the review conference. The statute will come up for review in seven years after the ICC is set up. In other words, seven years after the 60 states have ratified. At that stage, amendments can be proposed by the state parties. That is a long way down the line. That is precisely why we should be within the first 60 to get there so that we can shape the statute. However, we are not talking about amendments at this stage. We are merely talking about getting the wording right.

I take the hon. Lady's point. As she and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, it is difficult in opposition to get amendments right. I served 10 years in opposition, when we had to devise and table amendments. Even with the advice of learned counsel, it is possible to get them wrong. Even with the advice of the highest learned counsel in the land, one can still get the wording wrong. We are talking about corrections at this stage. The hon. Lady found that the wording of the amendment was not quite right, but we have still been prepared to discuss it. The glitches can be eased out to ensure that the substance of the debate is right and that we know exactly what the clear intention is. Amendments are not in question; it is simply a matter of corrections and tidying up the language. Amendments are much later down the line. I do not feel that this amendment is necessary.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

As the Minister sat down, I was trying to intervene on him to ask him to clarify a couple of the points which I raised with him which pertain to the two corrections that I have spelled out. He mentioned one to article 99 but he did not mention the one to article 124. I would be willing to give way if could tell us why paragraph 2 was included. That was not a minor alteration. Has he considered the implications? Was that one of the amendments that was suggested during his dialogue with legal counsel?

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

I personally did not discuss that with UN legal counsel, but our officials did. Again, there was an error in article 124, which was acknowledged by the French and so the amendment makes no substantial difference. Effectively these are minor corrections of language, grammar and typography, and nothing more.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that our dialogue on the amendment will set other people's minds at rest. It may be a minor correction to the Minister, but someone who is sitting in the dock in The Hague facing substantial penalties for serious crimes may not appreciate the niceties of punctuation, omitting words and paragraphs and differences in translations across several languages. The Minister, in his characteristically generous spirit, has put some useful points on the record, which may help us with the interpretation of the legislation, as it will undoubtedly come into statute law in the United Kingdom.

I should be grateful if the Minister would consider ensuring that corrections to the Rome statute suggested by the UK Government to the UN are always placed on the record in the Library and notified to the House of Commons, so that we know when the Government suggest corrections and what they are. As this is a transparent process and a matter of great international import, I hope that the Minister will also ensure that full details of all the corrections that have been made so far and the record of any discussions and negotiations that have taken place between officials are made available in the Library and the House of Commons notified. He acknowledged that such discussions are undertaken not by Ministers but by officials, who do a first-class job, as we all know.

We are talking about an international treaty of a substantial nature, which has given birth to a Bill and a statute that will change the face of UK law. It is, therefore, extremely important that changes made to the fundamental document should be part of a transparent process and placed on the record in the House of Commons.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Like me, my hon. Friend has been dealing with the Rome statute as published in December 1999 by the Stationery Office. Only minor changes may have been made since that date, but it would be extremely helpful to all hon. Members if an updated print of the statute were placed in the Vote Office. I am sure that that would not be very difficult.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am grateful for that intervention, because I was about to ask the Minister to consider what process is undertaken in the House of Commons to ensure that all the documents that we have are up to date. There is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, and there may be a publication in addition to the one that the Vote Office gave me.

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

As far as I am aware, the series of corrections to which the hon. Lady referred were made up to the point at which the Rome statute was agreed. As I understand it, there have been no corrections to the ICC statute as published in the Command Paper in December 1999, to which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred. There have been no corrections to the English text of the statute since July 1999. We are not aware of any corrections that remain to be made, but we could without any difficulty make available in the Library as transparent and helpful a summary as possible of what corrections were made initially and point that the process has reached.

I do not want to leave the impression that there is an on-going correction process, because that is not the case. Corrections have been made, the translations have settled down and the problems with commas, wording and titles have been ironed out. We can now move forward in the confidence that we have substantial material to discuss and on which we can agree.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that what the Minister says is absolutely accurate, but I will take his word for it. [Interruption] He hopes that it is absolutely accurate too. I will not be so curmudgeonly as to try to prove him wrong, because it is the spirit of the amendment that is important, and it was tabled to enable us to seek clarification and obtain guidelines. We have had a satisfactory debate, and I am grateful for the Minister's full reply. He may think of something else that might aid hon. Members to understand the continuous process of change that is taking place. I am sure that he will now have noted that the House of Commons and its Members require that process to be transparent. As I said that this was a probing amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 1, line 9, leave out—

`(other than the crime of aggression)'.

Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 37, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—

`other than crimes arising out of amendments to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute'.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

The amendments are extremely important and relate to the substance of our discussion, not only in terms of the application of the key articles of the Rome statute to the British population, but to the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. I hope that Government Members who are not part of the Executive will try to pay attention to my arguments, which deal with that relationship.

I am intrigued by the exception that was made for the crime of aggression in the definition of ICC crime. If we are content to allow ourselves to be subject to the provisions of the Rome statute, I do not understand why we would make an exception in the Bill for the crime of aggression. The explanatory notes purport to give an explanation.

My initial thought in tabling amendment No. 36 was to test the internationalist views and temper of the Government by removing the exception

``other than the crime of aggression''

to make the United Kingdom subject to the rulings of the ICC on aggression, as it is on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Government's explanation for the exception in clause 1 is that

``Agreement has yet to be reached''

—on the crime of aggression—

``and would in any case require an amendment of the ICC Statute. The earliest such an amendment could be adopted is seven years after the entry into force of the Statute (see Articles 121 and 123). Any amendment to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, if accepted by the UK, would need to be given effect by amendment to this legislation.''

If amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are taken together, they would put in the Bill the Government's reservations about the case of aggression in exactly the same terms as any change to the key articles of the statute, which are 5, 6, 7 and 8. My amendments mirror the reservations—or, in effect, the protection—in the position that the United Kingdom as a state party negotiated in article 121 of the treaty. Article 121.5, states:

``Any amendment to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Statute shall enter into force for those States Parties which have accepted the amendment one year after the deposit of their instruments of ratification or acceptance. In respect of a State Party which has not accepted the amendment, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime covered by the amendment when committed by that State Party's nationals or on its territory.''

That purports to give the protection to the United Kingdom that the Government desire if an amendment were negotiated.

The key element is that we do not have control over which amendments can be negotiated, because they do not have to be negotiated by unanimity. The assembly of states parties will decide whether a proposal that it receives for an amendment to the key sections of the statute should be discussed by a majority, and the adoption of such an amendment will require a two thirds majority of the states parties. The treaty goes on to state:

``Except as provided in paragraph 5, an amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties one year after instruments of ratification or acceptance have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations by seven-eighths of them.''

That takes us to why the United Kingdom needs protection. It appears to be protected under the statute, but that makes reference only to the Government, not to Parliament. Parliament should be given the same protection in the clause that the Government have seen fit to give in the case of aggression. The meaning of ``aggression'' will have to be negotiated because it was not decided in time to be included in the Rome statute. Reaching international agreement on that is an immensely difficult task, but Parliament should have the same protection in negotiating the statute as the Executive have given themselves in article 121.5.

That is important because the Government will find themselves under many pressures when negotiating amendments. They will not want to be seen to be outwith the general mood in the international community. That is why we are facing having the statute negotiated the way that it is. It can properly be argued that the Government are excessively sensitive to public opinion not only in the United Kingdom but in the global village, and that is why we are the only permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations likely to ratify the treaty without a reservation. The French will enter a reservation but of the three largest members of the Security Council, China has not even signed the statute and the United States has made it clear that it will not ratify it; I do not know the attitude of the Russians, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. The United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has an exposed position.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the policy of our Government and Parliament should be determined by a lowest common denominator approach and that we should not care about international obligations or improving situations? Perhaps he thinks that we should have the same human rights policy as the Chinese Government?

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I am saying that I expect the Government to come to a balance of judgment on the issues. The United Kingdom, with a population of 60 million and with a long record of interventions round the world, has to use a quite different set of judgments from those of the Governments of San Marino, Dominica, the Marshall Islands, Belize, Luxembourg or Fiji in deciding whether to be bound by the details of the Rome statute. All those countries have populations of fewer than 1 million people—the Marshall Islands has 51,000, Dominica has 71,000, and San Marino 27,000—and they have all ratified the statute. They will have the same influence in electing judges, by secret ballot, who will interpret the statute—which we will discuss later—and will be part of the seven-eighths of countries that are in a position to ensure that amendments to the statute end up in the statute. At that point the UK Government will have to decide whether, under article 121.5, they will accept such amendments.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Canada, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain and other countries. Is the hon. Gentleman really going back to the old argument of size and ``might is right''?

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

This is a unique statute. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said on Second Reading that it was one of the most important measures he had seen in his 35 years in the House of Commons. We should not underestimate its importance, and the importance of the institution it sets up. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there is no intention of introducing legislation by the back door, and that that is not the purpose of the Bill, but the amendments to clause 1 would protect the position of Parliament, decades ahead.

In 1951 when the Government negotiated the European convention on human rights, we did not know that 50 years later it would change how we choose to administer discipline in our armed forces. The changes might, or might not, be right on their merits, but that is a different argument. The issue is whether it is a vital interest of the United Kingdom to be able to organise her armed forces as she sees fit. No one who negotiated the convention in 1951 identified that point. The Minister talks about seven years being some time down the road, but when we consider the Bill, we must look further ahead than seven years, which is but a blip in diplomatic terms. In that time, the proposal will not even be up and running; no form of jurisprudence will have been established and there will be no record on which to make a judgment. How it works, and its consequences, will become clear only decades down the track. That is why it is important for the Bill to include the same safeguards for Parliament that the Government have negotiated for themselves. That would be the effect of the amendment.

Members of the Committee should bear in mind the size of the countries involved. The hon. Member for Ilford, North—

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

It is Ilford, South.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

Ilford, South is a rather better prospect than Ilford, North for the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that if we are one of the 60 nations that ratify the treaty, the total population of the smallest 30 nations will be 12.9 million and of the largest 30 nations, 2 billion. Thus nations representing half of 1 per cent. of the population of the major nations of the world will be those whose votes decide the appointment of judges, to which we shall return later.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the disparity in voting. The Minr paid far more attention to the fact that France, Spain, Italy and Germany signed the treaty than to the fact that the key player in the defence of freedom and in keeping the world a safer place, the United States of America, sees the dangers in having the court, and has not signed the treaty. Is not that much more important to take into account? This country is much more likely to be affected than the San Marinos of the world.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right. [Interruption.] I understand what the Minister is going to say and he will correct me if I am wrong: the United States has signed the treaty, but it is plain that it will not ratify it.

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

It is important to understand the difference between signing and ratifying; a substantial number of states—139—have signed the treaty, including the United States. We should not pre-empt whether they will ratify it in future.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.