New Clause 2 - Government responsibility to maintainlaw and order
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
9:55 am
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
The Minister's response is not unexpected and, at the very least, highlights the need for future interpreters of this law—when it becomes law—to ensure that the treaty is read alongside it. More importantly, our consideration of the Bill in Committee will play an important role in such interpretation, and confirm the Government's pick-and-mix attitude to the statute. Pepper v. Hart was a sensible ruling.
It still seems illogical for the Minister to rely on something that is in the statute of Rome and not included in the legislation, and to assure us that it is taken into consideration and implied in the Bill, when he rejected, for example, new clause 1 and the operation of article 124 of the statute. I do not want to turn this into a workshop on article 124, on which we have already had lengthy discussions, but it seems that there are inherent dangers in the Government's approach to the ratification process. They rely on wording contained within the statute on one occasion but not on another. That leaves potential difficulties for future generations.
The Minister has, however, revealed his hand. I am sure that he has strict riding orders not to accept any form of amendment to the Bill. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.