International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mr. Cook. In the business statement today, the Leader of the House announced that consideration on Report and Third Reading would take place on 9 May. I asked the right hon. Lady a question, pointing out that the Committee was precisely halfway through its consideration of the Bill, having reached the fifth of its 10 sittings, but had reached only the clause stand part debate for clause 2 of an 84-clause Bill. I asked her to consider rescheduling Report and Third Reading to allow us proper consideration of the important issues of principle that still have to be discussed, such as universal jurisdiction and diplomatic immunity. Such rescheduling would allow us also to continue our current discussion about the consequences of the Bill for reconciliation.
The right hon. Lady undertook to report my concerns to the Minister in charge of the Bill. I do not know whether she has had a chance to do that, but I would like to place on the record that it seems clear that we will not be able fully to discuss important issues of principle. I hope that the Government will consider postponing the date of Report and Third Reading to allow consideration of the Bill to continue after 3 May.
Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows well that that is not a matter for the Chairman. However, he has succeeded in getting his remarks on the record.
Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. I, too, am disappointed, but it is not for me to decide when the Committee reports—I am simply in charge of seeing the Bill through Committee. We had agreed a programme.
It was reported to me that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) complained that we have reached clause 2 only because there have been interventions and lengthy statements from Government Members. That is not quite true. Our remarks are on the record, written down word for word. If anyone would like to count the number of words or measure the number of minutes that Government Members have spent replying to amendments, and compare those numbers with the amount of time spent moving the amendments, that might leave the Opposition with some space to reflect. We are more than happy to debate these topics in any order that the Opposition choose. The time is in their hands. We wait with interest.
Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
Order. We have had quite enough discussion on that point. We will not succeed in our main task, which is line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, if we argue about the length of time that we are taking not to do it. Let us make some progress.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)
On a new point of order, Mr. Cook. The Minister has inadvertently misled the Committee about my remarks and on whether I made a complaint about the conduct of Government Members. I most certainly did not, and I want to make that explicit. There is no complaint on my part about the interventions that I took from other Members. We have had a proper debate and I would not want it to be thought that there was any concern about the conduct of Government Members, which, overall, has been exemplary.
Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. I accept that comment. I was under a misapprehension. I say that in good faith, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.
Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
We continue in that spirit of friendship with clause 2—[Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet and I am addressing the Committee. Let us preserve the good humour, but do so within the rules. We continue with the clause 2 stand part debate. Clause 2 Request for arrest and surrender