New Clause 2 - Government responsibility to maintainlaw and order
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
9:55 am
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In proposing new clause 2, I would like to apologise to the Committee for my unavoidable absence this afternoon. The Government, in their wisdom, have timetabled a discussion on the Floor of the House that means that I am required elsewhere. The fact that I will not participate in the final sitting is meant as no disrespect to the Chair, the Minister, or any member of the Committee.
As you can see, Mr. Cook, I am not rigged for silent running—I am running rather noisily. I would like to thank you for good-naturedly chairing the Committee. Last week British Gas mistakenly informed my husband that I was the late Cheryl Gillan; in the course of proceedings, I know that you have been called the late Mr. Cook, but I hope that you will never be described as I was—not in the next 10 years, at least.
I thank the Ministers for their forbearance and their constructive and informative approach to the Bill on most occasions—[Interruption.] If the Solicitor-General finds that the cap fits, I am sure that he will wear it. Even in their absence, I thank my hon. Friends for providing strong support, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for ably leading the discussion on the delicate legal issues arising from the Bill. I thank everybody for their help and support, and I am sure that this afternoon will proceed even more rapidly without me.
I hoped that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, would seriously consider accepting new clause 2. He has not approached me, so I presume that there is not a snowflake's chance in Hades of him accepting it. However, it would include in the Bill almost the identical words as those in article 8.3 of the Rome statute, which reads:
``Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.''
The new clause reiterates that, but widens it slightly. It reads:
``Nothing in the ICC Statute shall affect the responsibility''.
I presume that that is the intention of article 8.3; the new clause is our interpretation of it.
The purpose of the new clause is to offer protection. Earlier this week, we saw a first-class job carried out by our police service in controlling a potentially serious and riotous situation on the streets of London—civil unrest. The police are to be congratulated on a successful operation carried out legitimately and against the background of last year's similar protests and violence, which resulted in mayhem and fairly dreadful criminal activity on the streets of our capital city.
The purpose of the new clause is to highlight the circumstances surrounding civil disorder and the actions that any future Government may need to take to keep the peace and to defend the country. We are trying to ensure that the country can maintain control over its internal matters without the inhibition of potential interference from the ICC. In circumstances involving an event of greater gravity than this week's demonstrations—in Northern Ireland, for example, or in any other part of the UK for that matter—it is important to ensure that the ICC could not begin an investigation, raise charges or issue warrants to prosecute personnel who had been engaged in any controlling activity.
The matter was pursued in another place by my noble Friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who expressed it extremely well vis-a-vis Northern Ireland. I have no hesitation in referring to his words. He said:
``The current inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday in 1972 in Northern Ireland is revealing various new facts and aspects''—
as all members of the Committee will be aware. He continued:
``It could conclude that no further action is justified and all the truth, rumours and legends have come out. Our Government would then decide that that was the end of the matter. Could the International Criminal Court then step in on such a matter of civil order and pursue the investigations on the grounds that they had not been dealt with thoroughly enough? The amendment''—
the drafting of which is the same as the new clause—
``would ensure that should another such event occur . . . and should the animosities, miseries and hatreds of that event be perpetuated, the Government would be within their rights in maintaining and establishing law and order throughout the United Kingdom.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2001; Vol. 622, c. 50.]
The Government's response to the amendment in the other place was brief: they merely gave an assurance. Conservative Members still feel that it should have been included in the Bill and, given that the Minister is so keen to follow the statute, cannot understand why it has not been so included. When people examine the legislation in future, it is surely better that the Government's intentions in formulating it should be clear. If there is no problem with the new clause—which is the impression that I gained from the Government's reaction in the other place—I do not understand why the Minister cannot accept it, and must ask him to explain.