Landmines Bill (Hansard, 10 July 1998)

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In the time that it will take us to complete the Second Reading of the Bill, five people, somewhere in the world, will become casualties of landmines. Two of them will be killed; the other three are likely to be maimed for life. It is likely that they will be civilian and poor, and they will have already endured the terror and the destruction of war. One among them may well be a child, who will never run again because of a moment of tragedy at play. Their story is told across the world hundreds of times every week. About 60 million landmines lie scattered in 70 countries. They remain long after the fighting has stopped, and cause suffering out of all proportion to their possible military value. Hundreds of thousands of refugees cannot return to their homes because of landmines, and people cannot farm their land without risking death. Many are forced to take that risk simply to feed their families or to gather water and firewood to keep their families alive. After the trauma of war, landmines pollute the peace.
When the Government came to power, one of our first acts was to ban landmines unilaterally. We said that there was to be no more trade, no more transfer or production of landmines and a moratorium on their use. We said that stocks of landmines held by the British military would be destroyed and that we would do everything that we could to work for a wider ban. We have kept those promises: we have destroyed half the stockpile of the 1 million landmines that we inherited from the previous Government. By the end of this year, we shall have destroyed three quarters of that stockpile.
As far as we are aware, no other nation has done as much to destroy its stock of landmines. We played a leading role in the negotiations that led to the Ottawa convention, and we signed it at the first opportunity. Britain helped to draft the Ottawa convention, so it is entirely fitting that we should help to bring it into force. That is why the House is sitting today: if we pass the Bill, Britain will be among the first 40 countries to ratify the convention and to bring it into legal force.
I say to the House and to the Opposition that the Bill gives full effect to the terms of the Ottawa convention. Clause 2 prohibits British service men, or any other 1348 British citizen, from using, developing, producing, possessing or exporting a landmine. It also prevents them from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone else to do those things. Nor is this a token offence; conviction under clause 2 brings with it liability to a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has been expressing concern about the provisions of clause 5. Let me help him by explaining its limited purpose. Clause 5 does not provide British service men with any loophole to take part in the deployment of landmines. British forces will be instructed in their rules of engagement for any exercise or operation that they must not use, possess, transport or handle landmines. Clause 5 provides British service men with a shield against unreasonable prosecution because they took part in a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercise in which American forces deployed landmines. Without clause 5, any British Army officer present at a NATO planning meeting who heard that American forces taking part may possess landmines would be obliged to say that he must leave the meeting, or would render himself liable to a prison sentence of 14 years. I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to put our service men in that position. If he presses that point, he will effectively be arguing that it is impossible for Britain to implement the Ottawa convention without withdrawing from the NATO integrated command.

§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)
To avoid any doubt, let me make it clear that that is not the Opposition's position. We are saying that clause 5 is inconsistent with the convention. If the Foreign Secretary had woken up earlier to the need for provisions such as clause 5, he would have amended the convention accordingly. Did he make any attempt to do so?

§ Mr. Cook
Clause 5 is wholly consistent with the Ottawa convention. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants proof, I can tell him that our provision for British service men is similar to that made by the Government of Canada, who were the driving force behind the convention and who would certainly do nothing to undermine it. It is humbug that the Conservatives who, in power, kept their distance from the convention, should now complain that the Bill does not go far enough. If, in government, they had taken the line that we took at the general election, the Ottawa convention might have been completed earlier. The Opposition have promised us their help in passing the Bill. It would be warmly welcomed if we could fulfil what we understood to be an agreement between both Front Benches to achieve our shared commitment that Britain should be among the first 40 countries to ratify the convention.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)
The Government will have the help of the Liberal Democrats in ensuring that the Bill passes all necessary stages today.
The Attorney-General, who often intervenes on matters of this sort, not for the Government, but for the guidance of the whole House, is present today. Is the Secretary of State telling us that the Attorney-General advised him that the mere presence of a British officer at a NATO planning meeting could be a contravention of the Bill's criminal law provisions?

§ Mr. Cook
I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's assistance. I can assure him that the 1349 Law Officers concurred with everything in the Bill. The particular point to which he referred has had considerable discussion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will make his own position clear if he wishes to do so, but I speak with the full authority of the Government, and with the full support of the Law Officers.

§ The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris)
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Cook
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend—[Laughter.] My hon. Friends encourage me to give way more often to such interventions.
Our discussion of clause 5 highlights the serious problem of ensuring that every country bans landmines. The convention is not yet a global ban. There are countries that have not signed it, including some of the largest producers and exporters of landmines. We are working hard to bring those countries on board. A global ban must be exactly that. We are working in forums such as the conference on disarmament in Geneva to bring in others step by step. A limited, but useful, first step would be to have every country sign up to a ban on the export of landmines.
By passing the Bill today, the House will send a clear message from Britain to countries yet to join the international crusade against landmines. The House will send a clear message, too, to all who live with the threat of landmines. The Ottawa convention does not just ban production and use of landmines, but mandates signatories to help remove landmines, and to look after victims of landmines not removed in time.
A landmine costs only a few pounds to produce, but on average, the same landmine will cost several hundred pounds to clear. Britain is helping the worst-affected countries to clear landmines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has committed Britain to doubling its annual expenditure on demining. The British Army's mine and training information centre has trained more than 2,000 workers from countries in which landmines have been laid. It has also trained workers from British non-governmental organisations that work in those countries. The House will wish to record its appreciation of the courage and dedication of our soldiers, and of the staff of NGOs, such as the Red Cross, who have worked hard so that the people of other countries may be freed from fear of landmines.
Our century has taught us many lessons. We have learnt that humanity can be capable of the most evil and cruel acts. We have learnt, too, that humanity can look away from suffering. However, we have also learnt that humanity can rise above cruelty and blindness. Sometimes, humanity can decide that something is wrong, and can demand action to stop it. It has done so in the case of landmines.
Many people and many organisations have played a part in awakening the conscience of the world to the casualties of landmines. The Nobel peace prize given to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines was a well-deserved recognition of its determination. All hon. Members will be aware from their postbags of the immense contribution made by Diana, Princess of Wales 1350 to bringing home to many of our constituents the human costs of landmines. The best way in which to record our appreciation of her work, and the work of NGOs that have campaigned against landmines, is to pass the Bill, and to pave the way towards a global ban on landmines.

§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)
I join the Secretary of State in his condemnation of indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines and the suffering that they cause around the world. We have all been moved by the plight of the victims, and we are all aware of the arbitrary and cruel manner in which innocent civilians have been killed or maimed. We are all conscious of the horror of weapons that remain in the ground long after the conflict that caused them to be put there has ceased.
I also join the Secretary of State in praising the work done by many campaigners and non-governmental organisations to raise the issue of a total ban in the public consciousness. They include the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. Each has made a unique and important contribution. I should mention in particular the Nobel prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which brought together more than 100 different organisations.
Individuals, too, have played a crucial role. The Foreign Secretary rightly paid tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales, whose work was invaluable. In many ways, the progress made on a landmines ban is a worthier memorial to her than some of the other projects that have received so much recent attention. I want to pay particular tribute, too, to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Deedes, who has campaigned on the matter for many years and who took it up long before it became a fashionable cause. His work merits special acknowledgement.
The role of British forces in providing mine clearance advice and support should not be underestimated. The Royal Engineers and the Royal Ordnance Corps have been crucial to the success of demining operations. Retired members of the British armed forces have continued their work by joining such groups as the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group, to teach people in countries littered with anti-personnel mines how to remove them safely. Their work is not over. In areas such as Bosnia, demining remains a task vital to helping the country to return to something resembling what we call normality. We should pay tribute to the many people who do that dangerous job across the world, and to the companies—often British based—that are at the forefront of the demining effort.
I assure the Secretary of State that the official Opposition are committed to a meaningful ban on the sale and use of landmines. We support the spirit of the Ottawa convention, and made it clear as long ago as February that we would not obstruct the legislation, which was needed to allow the convention to be ratified. Like the Government, we look forward to the eradication of existing mines and the threat to life that they represent.
The road to the abolition of landmines is long, and we have not yet reached its end. It is also a road down which the United Kingdom had travelled a great distance before 1 May 1997. In April 1996, the previous Government announced that the United Kingdom would work actively 1351 towards a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines. They made it clear that, should such a ban be agreed, the United Kingdom would give up our anti-personnel landmine capability, and would destroy our stocks accordingly. The previous Government introduced an export moratorium and invested in mine clearance measures around the world. They announced their intention to destroy half our existing stocks of mines as soon as practicable, and to destroy the remainder when the international ban was agreed or viable alternatives became available. Severe restrictions on their deployment were also announced.
The Lyon G8 summit in 1996 included a declaration calling on all countries to make every effort to secure a global ban on the proliferation and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines. The declaration also welcomed the bans already adopted by some countries, including the United Kingdom, on the production, use and export of those weapons.
By October 1996, the European Union was ready, with British backing, to declare a common moratorium on the export of anti-personnel landmines. The European Union also took action to prevent the issuing of licences for the transfer of mine technology. That initiative was presented to the Ottawa conference and the United Nations General Assembly.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)
As always, I have listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. It is academic now, but why did the previous Government refuse to introduce legislation on the matter?

§ Mr. Howard
Simply because the Ottawa convention had not been agreed or signed. This legislation is designed to implement that convention, and this is the appropriate time to bring it forward.
By January 1997, Britain was ready to table a mandate to set up a committee at the conference on disarmament in Geneva to negotiate a global ban on anti-personnel landmines. During that time, some £22 million had been spent by the previous Government on mine clearance programmes across the world. The previous Government lived up to their promises, and did not promise what they could not deliver.
When the present Government came to office after the election, the Foreign Secretary made an early statement about their policy on landmines. Characteristically, it was accompanied by the usual hype—he has been at it again today. It was presented as an early example of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy. It was presented as if it were a great change from the policy of the previous Government. In fact, the two were virtually indistinguishable. In an article in the February edition of the journal of the Royal United Services Institute, Dr. Paul Bowers and Mr. Tom Dodd said: A possible irony is that until the Ottawa Convention enters force or 2005, whichever comes earlier, the essence of the Labour Government's policy on APMs, an export ban and use only in exceptional circumstances, is not altogether different from that reached by the Conservative Government in April 1996. It is true that, since then, matters have moved on somewhat. [Interruption.] Of course, that is true. In December 1997, the Government signed the Ottawa convention, which the legislation before the House today 1352 is designed to implement. We should concentrate on the convention, the legislation and the relationship between the two.
The Opposition support the spirit of the convention, which is why we shall not oppose the Bill. However, the limitations of the convention should be recognised. The United States of America, Russia, China and many other powerful and significant countries are not signatories. The convention will not introduce a worldwide ban.
The legislation raises many important issues, which we shall not be able to explore fully today. So reluctant are the Government to allow proper debate to take place—[Interruption.]—so nervous are they of proper scrutiny, that they have made it clear that they are not prepared to move a business motion to extend today's sitting beyond its normal time. I want to put on record the fact that the official Opposition asked for that extension. [Interruption.] We wanted to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it deserves. The Government's attitude was that, unless we finish at 2.30 pm today, the Bill will fall. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be heard.

§ Mr. Howard
That is the extent to which the Government hold this place in contempt. We were not prepared to see the Bill fall.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you allow the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to look round and see how many of his hon. Friends are present to support him?

Hon. Members
Three.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Howard
If the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) thinks that numbers are the sole criterion by which to judge the proper scrutiny of a Bill, he has a great deal to learn about the way in which legislation can be scrutinised.
We were not prepared to see the Bill fall today, so we have reluctantly accepted the timetable imposed on us by the Government. I strongly hope that the Bill will receive in the other place the careful scrutiny that we shall inevitably be unable to give it here.
In particular, we shall be unable to explore in sufficient detail the many questions that arise on the scope of the convention.

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson)
May I ask the shadow Foreign Secretary two brief questions? Yesterday, he was offered a briefing on the technical details of the Bill. Why did he turn down that offer? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is noticeably not present for the Second Reading, were given the Bill last week, why, in all that time and given his legal training, has be tabled only one amendment?

§ Mr. Howard
Because the amendment is sufficient to enable me to make the points that I can make within the 1353 time that the Government are prepared to make available today. [Interruption.] I am answering the Secretary of State's question. I am concerned to use the time available to me to deal with the relationship between the convention and the legislation. The particular point that I want to make is about the scope of clause 5. The briefing was not by the Foreign Office, which is responsible for the convention, but by the Secretary of State for Defence, and it did not deal with that matter. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who represents the Liberal Democrat party, and I did not accept that offer of a briefing yesterday. [Interruption.] That is the reason. Perhaps we can continue the debate.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not right for the right hon. and learned Member to be interrupted. He must be heard. The House must come to order.

§ Mr. Howard
I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will deal with some of the questions that are raised. Will he confirm—not in some private briefing, but on the Floor of the House—that the convention does not prohibit the use of anti-tank mines, even if anti-personnel mines are attached to them? Is it true that some of the most advanced anti-tank mines—such as the US Gator—are prohibited by the treaty, because the explosives contained in the anti-personnel mines associated with them are not attached to the main mine?
What is the position on the use of anti-personnel mines in association with anti-airfield weapons, such as the JP233? What are the Government's intentions on the many thousands of landmines that remain in position in the Falklands? Those are obviously very important questions, and I hope that Ministers will be able to answer them during the debate.
The history of this legislation is, to put it mildly, somewhat murky. The convention was signed last December. The Government made a commitment to ratify it as soon as possible. That was immediately modified to a commitment to ratify it as soon as the parliamentary timetable allowed. By February, no action had been taken to fulfil that major commitment.
In February, in response to a request from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), I told him that the Opposition would not obstruct the legislation. We are told that work on the text of the Bill then began, but that it was not until 9 June, after comprehensive consultation with interested Whitehall Departments, that instructions were sent to parliamentary counsel. Even then, there was confusion, which was typified by unedifying reports that the blame for the failure to present legislation to ratify the convention was being passed between the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House.
At that stage, the Government did what they always do when they are to blame—they tried to transfer the blame to the Opposition. The Leader of the House said that the Government had heard only "very recently" that the Opposition would be willing to help with the progress of the legislation. The Secretary of State for Defence said that one of the reasons for lack of progress was that the Government had been waiting to hear from the Opposition. All that is totally untrue. The Government 1354 were told as long ago as February that the Opposition would co-operate with the passage of the Bill and would not seek to obstruct it. The delay is entirely the Government's fault.
The legislation is now before the House and for the first time we can compare the Bill with the treaty that it is supposed to put into effect. I remind the House that the treaty was signed by the United Kingdom without reservation or amendment. The Foreign Secretary characteristically boasted that the Government were able to play a major part in drafting the treaty. The Prime Minister said: the land mines treaty has done a superb job and we on this side support it thoroughly. Furthermore, it is another initiative in which the new Government played a leading role."—[Official Report, 10 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 1010.] In that case, why does the legislation not implement the convention? Why does it permit conduct that the convention expressly prohibits? Why is there such a huge gap between the Bill's provisions and those of the convention, and why are the Government once again saying one thing and doing another? I shall explain. The terms of article 1.1 of the convention are clear: Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:

(a) To use anti-personnel mines;

(b) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;

(c) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention."

There is no doubt or ambiguity in that paragraph. It expressly prohibits assisting anyone to engage in any activity that is prohibited by the convention. What does the legislation contain? The relevant part is clause 5, which provides a defence for someone who is otherwise guilty of conduct that is prohibited by the legislation. That defence applies to joint operations conducted overseas with the armed forces of another Government in the course of which there is or may be some deployment of anti-personnel mines by the forces of the other Government who are not signatories to the convention. In those circumstances, according to clause 5, British forces are permitted to do anything other than actually lay anti-personnel mines. They can procure, transfer, modify, adapt or even prime landmines as long as they do not actually lay them.
That is not an academic point, because the other Government with whose forces we are perhaps most likely to enter into joint operations are the Government of the United States, who are not signatories to the Ottawa convention. The effect of clause 5 is that when British forces are engaged in joint operations with the United States or the forces of any country that is not a signatory to the convention, they are given full licence by the legislation to breach the Ottawa convention.

§ Mr. Robin Cook
rose—

§ Mr. Howard
I shall finish the passage and then give way to the Secretary of State.
We may be told that it is important and essential for British troops to be able to operate in that way. That may be true, but it is absolutely and explicitly contrary to the provisions of the Ottawa convention. That has been pointed out not only by me but by numerous spokesmen 1355 on behalf of the campaigning groups that have paid careful attention to the provisions of the legislation and the way in which they differ from the convention.
The Government could have sought to amend the convention. Perhaps they will say whether they attempted to amend it and failed. If that is the case, they are guilty of extreme duplicity. Alternatively, did they simply not notice what the convention would mean? Was it perhaps not until after comprehensive consultations with interested Whitehall Departments, when the legislation was beginning to be drafted, that the difficulty came to light? If that is the case, the Government stand convicted of extreme incompetence. Either way, the Government are asking Parliament to legislate to permit conduct that would be completely contrary to a convention that they signed as recently as December.

§ Mr. Robin Cook
I plead with the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to attribute to everybody else the conspiracy under which he operates. Clause 2 faithfully and fully puts the Ottawa convention into British legislation. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear me the first time, I say again that it prohibits British troops from using, developing, producing, possessing or transferring landmines or assisting, encouraging or inducing any other person to do so. That provision will be clearly expressed in the rules of engagement for British forces. There will be no licence for British troops.
Clause 5 is purely prudential. It will protect British troops from being criminalised by the actions of American troops who may be taking part in the same operation. I shall put again the example that I gave earlier of a sapper sergeant who builds a bridge in a NATO exercise and, unknown to him, the Americans drive across it a truck containing landmines. We want to make it clear beyond doubt that such a man is not liable to conviction and 14 years in prison. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not willing to remove that doubt, I am beginning to understand why the Conservative party's senior defence spokesman has not turned up for the debate.

§ Mr. Howard
It is most unlikely that the conduct that the Foreign Secretary mentions would amount to a breach of the convention in the first place.

§ Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Howard
No. I am dealing with the Foreign Secretary's point. Clause 5 is not needed to give effect to that situation.

§ Mr. Cook
rose—

§ Mr. Howard
I shall give way when I have finished. Irrespective of whether it is needed to cover that situation, the point to be answered by the Foreign Secretary is that the terms of clause 5 are extremely wide. The only activity that it expressly prohibits in joint operations is the actual laying of a landmine. That is contained in clause 5(2). If what the Foreign Secretary seeks to achieve is his only concern, he could amend clause 5 here or in another place to meet that concern, but clause 5 is widely drawn and is contrary to the convention's language.

§ Mr. Cook
Of course clause 5 is widely drawn because its purpose is not to prohibit activities but to provide 1356 protection for British forces. The word "unlikely" will not do. The sapper sergeant may ask, "If I build this bridge, will I be liable to 14 years' imprisonment?" The answer that that is "unlikely" will not be sufficient. We want to put the matter beyond doubt. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now put it beyond doubt?

§ Mr. Howard
That is precisely why I say that if that is the Foreign Secretary's concern—I think that it is an unnecessary concern—it could be met by drafting the Bill narrowly, specifically to cover that point. The Foreign Secretary says that clause 5 does not prohibit activity. Of course he is right; clause 5 permits activity. The point is that clause 5 permits a wide range of activity—everything except laying a landmine—in contravention of the convention itself. We shall press the Government hard for explanations of that in Committee.
I hope that we shall hear more from the Government about the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill. Can the Government offer any estimate of the costs that they expect to arise from the need to examine and procure alternative technologies to meet the military capability previously provided by anti-personnel mines? Have they any idea of the costs of destroying the stocks of anti-personnel mines? If so, why are they not included in the memorandum? Is there any estimate of the costs of cancelling any support contracts, which are referred to in the memorandum? Those are important matters.
In February, the Opposition gave an undertaking not to obstruct the passage of the legislation. We shall honour that undertaking. We shall not in any sense seek to obstruct the Bill's passage, but the Bill is an imperfect animal. It merits the closest scrutiny. As a result of the Government's contemptuous attitude to the time to be made available for its scrutiny in the House, there is very little that we shall be able to do, but I hope that those deficiencies will, at least to some extent, be remedied when the Bill reaches another place.

§ Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston)
I am delighted that, today, in one fell swoop, the Bill will complete all its House of Commons stages and be passed unanimously by the House. There is no conceivable reason why any hon. Member should vote against it.
I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for International Development and all their ministerial colleagues on all their efforts in the campaign against landmines and on their desire to ratify the Ottawa convention. It is another manifesto promise on which the Labour Government have delivered and will continue to deliver as we destroy the United Kingdom's stockpile of landmines.
Compare the record of the Labour Government with that of the last Tory Government and the miserable, shabby, weasel words of the shadow Foreign Secretary this morning. My only slight regret is that we did not introduce this legislation some weeks ago while the UK still held the presidency of the European Union, because it would have been one of the highlights of that presidency.
As chairman of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I am proud of the role that the IPU and our group have played in the international campaign over the past four years. I pay tribute to my predecessor, 1357 Dame Jill Knight, now Baroness Knight, who campaigned vigorously in support of the resolution that was eventually carried unanimously by the IPU conference of some 130 nations, which called for a global ban on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I am proud to have played a part in supporting that campaign at successive IPU conferences.
The Government have been one of the world leaders in the campaign, and the UK was one of the first nations to sign the Ottawa convention last December. We must all honour Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his Government for their initiative in introducing the Ottawa convention. I also thank all my colleagues who have signed my early-day motion 1387, which calls for this very legislation.
The Bill enables our Government to ratify the Ottawa convention, which comes into effect only when 40 nations have done so. Why do we need to ratify the convention? We need to do so because there can be no more flagrant example of man's inhumanity to man in the modern world than the barbaric practice of planting anti-personnel mines, which kill 800 people and maim another 1,200 every month of every year. Since 1975, more than 1 million people have been killed or injured and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, many of them were women and children, the most vulnerable members of society.
Estimates may vary, but one is that more than 100 million landmines are scattered indiscriminately throughout 62 countries, adversely affecting the economies of many of the poorest nations; preventing or delaying the development of agriculture and industry, the growing of food and much needed construction of good clean water supplies; and killing valuable livestock.
Expensive and scarce medical supplies are used up, and all civilians, including volunteer aid workers, are at risk. They will continue to be so as long as one landmine exists anywhere in the world. Those weapons will be capable of destruction for as long as they are there. Enormous sums of aid money that could be used for much more positive purposes have to be diverted to mine clearance. That is another worrying aspect of the situation.
I strongly suggest that all hon. Members read the report by the International Committee of the Red Cross entitled "The Worldwide Epidemic of Landmine Injuries", which graphically describes the horrific effect of blast and fragment mines. They will then realise only too well why we need this Bill. It is not only limbs that are blown off. Genitalia are destroyed and people are horrifically maimed. Reading that report would bring tears to hon. Members' eyes. I commend it to the House. Again, I praise the Government for all the humanitarian aid and assistance that they provide to people in need. I appeal to the Government to do more as soon as they can.
The Ottawa convention is not the end of the matter—nor is it perfect. It is only one step forward. Ratifying it and bringing it into the national law of each country as soon as possible is essential. Our Government have a vital role to play in persuading China, India, Russia and the United States to sign and ratify the convention.
Other nations such as Turkey and several African states refuse to support the convention. Perhaps the giving of political co-operation and aid should be linked to the 1358 recipient ratifying the convention. I ask my right hon. Friends to consider adopting such a policy, so taking another step forward.

§ Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan)
Does my hon. Friend recognise the valuable role played by the North Atlantic Assembly in trying to convince some of those member states of the need to ratify the Ottawa convention?

§ Mr. Marshall
I am only too happy to do so, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his activities in the campaign.
I congratulate all those countries, organisations and individuals who are making financial and physical contributions to the anti-landmines effort. An especially welcome new initiative is the movement towards partnership arrangements between Governments, private companies, organisations and wealthy individuals to raise extra funds for the campaign. I hope that those will be given every encouragement.
The treaty will need to be rigidly enforced and must be properly monitored. In addition, it will need to be reviewed from time to time to tighten any loopholes, to expand its aims, and to persuade even more countries to sign and ratify it.
It is not possible to have such a debate without paying tribute to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. More than anyone else in the world, she raised the profile of the campaign against landmines. It was fitting that the Prime Minister announced the legislation on 1 July, which would have been her 37th birthday, and I hope that it will become law before the first anniversary of her death on 31 August. There can be no greater tribute to her memory than that we all work together to ensure that there is a concentrated, co-ordinated and cohesive worldwide campaign, involving the utmost co-operation between Governments, aid agencies and citizens, to achieve an effective and total global ban on landmines. That must be our ultimate aim. If we do that, we can look forward to the day when people can live without fear of their next step being their last.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)
I commend the Government for having found the means and time by which to offer the House the opportunity to ratify the Ottawa convention—or, perhaps more correctly, to pass the legislation that is necessary in order that the Government may ratify it. Although I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by the shadow Foreign Secretary about the consequences of clause 5—to which we shall come in due course—I do not share his view that there is inadequate time. If the House approaches this matter sensibly and reasonably, the Bill can pass all its stages in this House today and can be sent post haste to the other place, in the hope that it can then pass quickly into our law.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I like to think that the consistent pressure and support that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have directed towards the Government has encouraged them to proceed. Although I do not subscribe to the "We thought of it first" school of politics—well, not much—it is right to put it on record that it was at a Liberal Democrat 1359 conference on 20 December 1995 that we first passed a motion calling for a ban in almost exactly the same terms as those of the convention.
The purpose of the legislation is clear and unambiguous, and it has the overwhelming support of the House. It allows us to play our part in the elimination of a scourge on the lives of innocent civilians, who are often among the poorest people in the world, by prohibiting a military procedure that is now largely discredited.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) referred to the late Princess of Wales. One could say that she lent the campaign her humanity and even her style to great effect, but others must be mentioned, too. I am thinking of, for example, Colonel Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, one of the guiding lights behind the Halo Trust. He was responsible for an occasion in Aden which demonstrated the robustness of the Scottish regiments, but, in later life, he appreciated the horror of landmines and spent a great deal of time and effort seeking to advance the cause with which the Bill is associated. Also, as the shadow Foreign Secretary said, long before this was a fashionable issue, Lord Deedes had taken it up and sought to prosecute it with great vigour and robustness.
Someone else who must be mentioned, but who has not yet been referred to, is the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). He is not in his place today, but I believe he is absent on parliamentary business. For hon. Members who do not know this—although they should—over the past three or four years at the North Atlantic Assembly the hon. Gentleman has been a consistent advocate of the need to ratify the Ottawa convention. His contribution to the debate and his efforts to persuade politicians of other countries, not necessarily as sympathetic as those Members of the House here today, have been very considerable. It is right and proper that we should recognise his contribution on this occasion.

§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
As the hon. and learned Gentleman is spraying compliments around, he might like to mention Peter Truscott, a Member of the European Parliament, whom many of us remember holding a landmine at the Labour party conference four years ago and urging that the ban be part of Labour policy as soon as we formed a Government.

§ Mr. Campbell
I am really willing to offer congratulations only to those people I know personally. As the hon. Gentleman is in congratulatory mode, he may seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As the purpose of the Bill is clear, and is one for which there is universal support, the public will expect the House to proceed with dispatch. In a moment or two, I should like to remind the House of the scale of the problem, but let me deal first with clause 5, about which there is a genuine difference of legal interpretation. It might be the Attorney-General's view that mere presence at a discussion about the possibility of laying landmines might constitute an offence, but, in my legal experience, that is a somewhat novel proposition. I do not want to explore this issue in too much detail before we reach the appropriate stage of our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but mere presence has never previously been regarded as sufficient to constitute a criminal offence.
The Foreign Secretary gave the example of the sapper. Someone who does not display what is called mens rea—a guilty intention—cannot be guilty of a crime. In the 1360 example that the right hon. Gentleman gave, the sapper clearly could not be guilty of a crime. The right hon. Gentleman said that the rules of engagement would be clear, and that British forces would know what was expected of them through the chain of command. What concerns us is that clause 5 provides a defence—that is its purpose—but that that defence is too wide. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been holding a conversation since he entered the Chamber. It is extremely unfair on any hon. Member who is speaking.

§ Mr. Campbell
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is something that most of us have become used to.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about a sapper building a bridge, and referring to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said about the possibility of that sapper being involved in damages or court action arising out of his involvement with another country that was laying mines. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about mens rea and so on. Is he trying to tell the House that in the middle of those activities, the sapper is going to have a copy of mens rea in his back pocket so that he knows what the law is? Get a life—join the real world! What my right hon. Friend is trying to do—although the hon. and learned Gentleman is a failed lawyer and cannot understand it—is to ensure that people are protected in law. That is the reason for clause 5.

§ Mr. Campbell
I was always taught that the personal attack was pretty well an admission of the inadequacy of the merits of the case being made. There is a serious foreign affairs issue here. The Foreign Secretary referred to the possibility of British troops engaged in operations with United States troops. The only place where the United States deploys large numbers of landmines at present is the Korean peninsula. That leads to the interesting question whether we are seeking to pass the Bill as proposed in order to ensure that British troops might be protected, as the Government urge, in relation to operations on the Korean peninsula. That would be a very interesting foreign policy development which the Government have not made plain.
I said that I should like to deal to some extent with the scale of the problem. There are 100 million landmines currently deployed in 70 of the poorest countries. For every mine cleared, it is estimated that another 20 are laid. There is one landmine for every 16 children in the world, and one for every 48 adults. Angola and Cambodia have more than one mine per member of the population, and British-laid mines dating from the second world war still pose a problem in Saharan Africa.

§ Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Campbell
No, I must make progress.
In Angola, one in every 334 people is a mine-related amputee. World wide, there are approximately 250,000 landmine amputees. The cost of treatment for such people is prohibitive. A child's prosthetic limb must be replaced every six months, and an adult's every three to five years. Over a 50-year lifespan, that equates to about 1361 25 new prostheses. At around $125 each, that means a lifetime cost of well over $3,000. In countries where the monthly per capita income is about $20, that is unaffordable. Most victims face a lifetime on crutches.
The hon. Member for Shettleston referred to the economic cost. Livestock is killed as readily as people; agricultural land is rendered unusable, which leads to malnutrition and starvation; and the development of roads, railways, bridges and other elements of infrastructure is inhibited. It has been estimated that, without landmines, Afghanistan and Cambodia could increase agricultural production by up to 200 per cent.
I understand that the United Kingdom is to double its contribution to the demining effort. Our present level of support for that is of the order of £10 million a year; £20 million a year is clearly progress, but when we consider that Canada provides £45 million, Japan £50 million and Norway £75 million, it seems that we could try to be a little more generous.
I come to the Government's attitude on whether the laying of landmines should be a war crime. I agree that that is an issue, and would not readily leap to the position, as some have, of suggesting that the Government are behaving inappropriately or unreasonably in questioning the issue, which is clearly one of some importance. I hope that the Government will soon be able to tell us their thinking on the matter.
I have some reservations about the notion of extending the category of war crime on what is almost a request basis. War crimes are special and terrible crimes, and should be dealt with in a specific and serious manner. If we make every activity of which we disapprove a war crime, the consequence may be to reduce the significance of war crimes and the special way in which they should be dealt with.
As I said, I have some reservations about clause 5, which I hope to explore in due course. However, I have no doubt about the need for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty. I have no doubt also that it is essential that the Bill should today pass through all its stages in our House.

§ Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
I am very proud that a Labour Government are acting so swiftly to rid the world of landmines. Years before the Ottawa convention, people in the Labour party were always in the front-line of the battle to get rid of landmines. It is not a new issue for us. Even before it was party policy, many Labour Members who are today in the Chamber were fighting hard to rid the world of those horrible weapons. I started taking a special interest in the subject when I went to Cambodia, in 1987, and saw for myself the victims of landmines planted there.
I noted with interest the shadow Foreign Secretary's quibbling about various of the Bill's provisions, which he thinks do not quite hold together. It was interesting also that he did not mention one of the Ottawa's convention's most important flaws—that only a quarter of the world's states have signed up to it. The fact that three quarters of countries have not signed up to the convention is one of the biggest flaws in the whole process. I hope that, now 1362 that the United Kingdom is to ratify the convention, we will encourage many Commonwealth members also to ratify it.

§ Mr. Howard
I assure the hon. Lady that I share her concerns on that point. I mentioned those concerns in my speech.

§ Ann Clwyd
I should like to take as an example Cambodia, with which I have been very involved over the years. It has 41,000 landmine victims—the highest ratio of mine amputees to population in the entire world. An estimated 5 million to 7 million mines were planted in Cambodia, which is about the same size as Britain.
Although I am sorry to introduce this note into the debate, I think that we should examine the history. In the 1980s, to our eternal shame, the United Kingdom Government were partly responsible for training the non-communist resistance in Cambodia—which included the Khmer Rouge—to lay landmines. We should not forget that, between 1983 and 1987, Britain's forces assisted in showing those forces how to maim innocent men, women and children. We therefore have a special responsibility in investing more money in demining, and also in leading the world in banning landmine use.

§ Ms Tess Kingham (Gloucester)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government's policy was not as stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who said that it was very similar to the current Government's policy? For several years, I worked on a landmines campaign with a non-governmental organisation—Oxfam—and remember very distinctly that the previous Government's policy was very much one of trying to ban the export rather than the production and stockpiling of landmines. Neither was their policy one of trying to ban the training or paraphernalia associated with landmine use. The previous Government's landmine policy was neither in line with the current Government's actions nor something on which they should be congratulated.

§ Ann Clwyd
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who gained considerable experience when she worked with an aid agency on those very matters.
In 1989, I saw for myself the children, women and men who were injured by landmines in Cambodia. Some of them were begging pathetically in the dirty streets of Phnom Penh; others hobbled on one limb in dusty lanes in villages.
Some years later, a young Cambodian man called Tun Channareth, who was a civilian, spoke movingly at a London press conference—at which I am sure some of my hon. Friends were present. He spoke of the threat to his own people posed by the legacy of landmines in Cambodia left in the 1980s and before. He did not stand up to speak, as both his legs had been blown off by a landmine some years before. He said: Cambodia has no factories producing landmines, yet my country is full of them. How many more people have to lose limbs or their lives before the world wakes up to the need to ban landmines? I beg you again to ban these mines. Whether a device was "dumb" or "smart" would have been completely irrelevant to Tun Channareth, as it would to the many hundreds of thousands of other landmine 1363 amputees in the world's former battle zones. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, landmines are grotesque weapons. In all those countries, innocent victims—often small children—and not the military are principally the ones who are hurt by landmines.
Many hon. Members have mentioned Lord Deedes, and I am pleased to do the same. He said: I take the view that anti-personnel mines are a crime against humanity, which civilised nations should not touch with a barge pole. John Pilger, in his book "Distant Voices", described some of the landmine victims he met: They are usually civilians, such as 23 year old Rong, a beautiful young woman lying in the hospital at Kompang Spen with her 3 year old infant beside her. When she stepped on a mine she fell into water and lay for three hours bleeding. When her father found her, he applied a tourniquet, carried her to the road and flagged down a motorcycle taxi. He took her to a 1st aid post; it was 7 hours before she got to hospital. The mine that Rong stepped on had driven dirt and bacteria deep into the wound, causing infection to spread fast. The blood vessels had coagulated, and there was thrombosis high up in her leg. Had she been able to get into hospital quickly, her leg might have been saved. 'I knew there were mines around', she said. 'Every day I was in fear of them. But the work has to be done.' Her story is like so many others in countries infested with landmines.
Asia Watch described the after effects of amputation: Nearly every aspect of a Cambodian's life is set to the rhythm of rice cultivation—the flooding, the planting, the re-planting and harvesting. It is very labour intensive—and a person who is physically disabled can become a burden. Female amputees are less desirable as wives because they cannot work in the fields and male amputees are now allowed to become Buddhist monks. Many amputees drift to Phnom Penh and become beggars or petty criminals. In September 1991, Asia Watch, in its report "Land Mines in Cambodia—the Coward's War", noted that Cambodia has the highest percentage of mine amputees of any country—the highest percentage of physically disabled inhabitants of any country in the world…for every victim who makes it to hospital another will die in the fields. These grim statistics mean that the Cambodian war may be the first in history in which landmines have gained more victims than any other weapon. The Red Cross recently said that landmines are fighters that never miss, strike blindly, do not carry weapons openly and go on killing long after hostilities are ended. In short, mines are the greatest violators of international humanitarian law. They are the most ruthless terrorists.
When Diana, Princess of Wales went to Angola last January, she gave the Red Cross campaign an enormous boost. The pictures of the princess wearing body armour and a helmet with a visor learning how to demine caught the world's attention. While she was in Angola, she was criticised by certain Conservative Members. I have been campaigning against the use of landmines for many years and I have written three reports on the subject. I was so angry that the princess was being criticised for making a humanitarian gesture that I tabled the following early-day motion: That this House congratulates Diana, Princess of Wales, for effectively highlighting the tragic humanitarian consequences of Her Majesty's Government's refusal to completely ban the production and use of landmines; and notes with dismay the reported churlish response from Government Ministers on her efforts. 1364 It was signed by 73 right hon. and hon. Members in the previous Parliament.
I sent the princess a copy of the early-day motion and one day I was sitting in my office when I received a telephone call from Kensington palace inviting me to have coffee with her. I spent an hour and a half with her at Kensington palace. She said how pleased she was that so many hon. Members had signed the early-day motion. When I said that she had done more than anyone else to highlight the importance of the landmines issue, she smiled shyly and said, "I will go anywhere if I can do some good." She was self-deprecating as she laughed at herself and said, "Have passport, will travel."
Originally, the princess had wanted to go to Cambodia, but the Foreign Office had told her that it was unsafe. I said that I had been there twice with Oxfam and she said that she was keen to go there as soon as possible. We discussed the role that Britain had played in planting some of the mines in Cambodia and the attitude of various countries towards landmines. She said with some disgust that our ambassador in Angola did not even know what a landmine looked like and that she thought that the briefing she had been given was not very good. I was impressed by her knowledge, intelligence, friendliness and capacity for self-deprecation. We talked about going to northern Iraq and the possibility of her coming to the House to meet hon. Members with a common interest in landmines. Hon. Members will be aware that she made an attempt to come here and talk about landmines, but, because of the attitude of the Conservative party, she cancelled her visit. That was a great pity, and Conservative Members should feel extremely guilty about it.
Finally, many of us who have campaigned for a long time on the issue feel that we are making an important start. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and all his ministerial colleagues who have been so active in achieving agreement on the Ottawa convention and have been at the forefront of the campaign. I hope that they will continue to do so until the scourge of landmines, which has claimed the lives of so many ordinary people throughout the world, is finally eliminated.

§ Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). We agree on a surprising number of issues and I pay tribute to the way in which she highlighted many atrocities throughout the world. Today, she has highlighted the atrocities that landmines indiscriminately inflict on innocent civilians.
The House is united in that none of us likes anti-personnel mines. I would be astonished if anyone did, as it would be rather like saying that one liked the devil. However, when the House is united, logic does not come into play as much as it might. I should like to give something of a soldier's perspective on landmines and the Bill.
I remember sitting in a vehicle in a minefield in the Gulf. Indeed, a successor of mine as company commander in the Coldstream Guards had the wheel of his trailer blown off by an anti-personnel mine. Someone sitting in a minefield is not tempted to get out and walk and if they are in a vehicle they must follow very closely in the tracks of the vehicle in front. It is very unpleasant—it is designed to be.
1365 At least two of the 16 fatalities in the Gulf resulted from anti-personnel mines. They did not involve front-line soldiers but lorry drivers who got out of their lorries and trod on mines. In Bosnia, about six soldiers have been killed by anti-personnel mines.
I have seen the effects elsewhere. I remember seeing a mujaheddin on a pony coming down a pass from the Afghan border. I was with a Swiss doctor from the International Committee of the Red Cross. It was amazing that the victim managed to survive and travel by pony to the nearest hospital, which was about 50 miles away. I hope that he survived when he got there. I visited a refugee camp in Peshawar and saw the poor civilians who had escaped from Afghanistan without limbs. When I was with the Swiss doctor I attended an operation on a landmine victim who had gangrene. It was extremely unpleasant.
In the Falklands, I was the staff officer responsible for the small Royal Engineers detachment that supervises the mines left over from the war of 1982. They gave up clearing the mines in about 1984 because several soldiers had lost their legs. The Falklands are pretty empty and it was thought better to let the mines drift around in the peat and sand rather than risk people's lives by clearing them—and that is quite right. A device has been developed that I think is called the Red Eye. It is a little wheelbarrow-type machine that is operated by remote control and burns the plastic mines that are undetectable with mine detectors. They go puff as the explosive burns. Some areas in the Falkland islands will be closed for ever unless they have to be cleared because we have ratified the convention.
In the Army, I was trained in the tactical use of anti-personnel mines. It is important for the House to understand why many soldiers value them. Quite simply, they protect the forces. Most armies use them only in defensive positions, when they are extremely useful, especially when they are outnumbered. We have heard about the the Americans in Korea. If the Soviet hordes had crossed the inner German border we would have used anti-personnel mines extensively. They are a valued weapon and, until now, they have always been considered legitimate. The British doctrine is always to cover obstacles such as anti-personnel mines; otherwise, someone can quite easily breach them. They have been part of our defensive armoury and our tactics. The Secretary of State for Defence may say that senior Army officers now say that they can survive quite happily without them, but, if there were to be another major conflict, we might feel the lack of them.
Landmines certainly have drawbacks from a military point of view. They deny the ground not only to the enemy but to one's own troops. If they get thrown off a position, they can end up stuck in their own minefield, which is pretty unpleasant. Furthermore, landmines are not failsafe. In 1945, in the dash to Berlin, the Soviet Union marched its penal battalions in front of its other troops and I believe that it lost 10,000 people to landmines in the month before reaching Berlin.
I have also seen the inner German border and the Berlin wall before the iron curtain was lifted. It was covered with landmines—not to keep us out, but to keep people who did not like socialism in. We should remember that.
1366 We have heard about the problem, so I will not dwell on it, but it is not a British problem, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said. The problem is the indiscriminate use of landmines. The United Kingdom has not exported landmines since 1982. They do not threaten civilians in Angola and elsewhere if they are sitting in a bunker somewhere in Aldershot. No British anti-personnel mines are sitting in the ground threatening civilians anywhere.
The hon. and learned Member who spoke for the Liberals referred to landmines in the Sahara. I think that they are all anti-tank mines, although I may be wrong. They are certainly metal mines. Furthermore, British troops have been taught, as I was, to mark minefields. That is part of international law. We want to clear them because we want the land back if we are in a defensive position.
The Halo Trust has been mentioned by several hon. Members. One should remember that it was formed by a former Conservative Member of Parliament, Colin Mitchell.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell
I mentioned him.

§ Mr. Robathan
The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention his party. I once had an interview with Colin Mitchell about going out to Kabul to work for the Halo Trust, where it has done immensely good work. I have many friends who have worked for it. However, we should be under no doubt that the Halo Trust—I have spoken to it—has never found one British anti-personnel mine in its clearing of hundreds of thousands. It may have missed them, but not one has been found.
As hon. Members may know, in the Afghan conflict the Soviet Union went up and down the border with Pakistan to stop the mujaheddin getting in. It threw out from helicopters between 4 million and 5 million butterfly mines, which arm as they go down. They are all plastic, so they cannot be found. They look rather pretty, so children like them. Not many can have been cleared, so 4 million to 5 million must be left. I should point out that it is not possible to mark a minefield from a helicopter.
In Cambodia, Bosnia and Angola, millions of mines have been laid indiscriminately. The vast majority come from Russia, the former eastern bloc and China. Russia and China are not ratifying the convention. Furthermore, many landmines, especially in Bosnia, are home made, as hon. Members may have seen. One can make landmines in a workshop in the garden or in the kitchen. All that is needed is a string, a trigger, a box and a bit of plastic explosive.
Laying landmines is a favourite tactic of what some people call freedom fighters. The Viet Cong specialised in the use of booby traps, as does the IRA. I have had friends killed by home-made anti-personnel devices in Northern Ireland. So how will the Bill enforce the ban in, for example, Northern Ireland? I would love to see IRA criminals put on war crimes trials, but the House has just passed a measure that will let people convicted of such crimes out of prison within the next couple of years. We should look at that dichotomy.

§ Mr. Skinner
Well, the hon. Gentleman voted for it.

§ Mr. Robathan
The hon. Gentleman, voluble as always, bangs on saying that I voted for it. I did not.

§ Mr. Skinner
Everyone did.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Robathan
So what is the point of the Bill? Is it to set a good example? We are all for that, but who will follow our example? Not, I suspect, UNITA or the Khmer Rouge, if it still exists, or the Taliban or the IRA. So what are we doing in the Bill? In my opinion, we shall be withdrawing a legitimate means of protecting our soldiers, who, to my knowledge, have not misused anti-personnel mines within my lifetime in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] We hear a lot of barracking from the Labour Benches, but three quarters of countries do not consider that the Bill is a sensible move because they have not ratified the convention. If everyone ratified the convention, it would be marvellous, but many other countries are not considering doing so at the moment. Perhaps they will, following our example.
I fear that we may expose our public servants to danger. In every defence debate, Labour Members extol our public servants in the armed forces and say how well they work for us. One day, our public servants may value anti-personnel mines to protect them.

§ Mr. George Robertson
The hon. Gentleman raises from his military experience some interesting points. Clearly this is a matter of great relevance to the armed forces. How does he react to the fact that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence has not even bothered to turn up today?

§ Mr. Robathan
My hon. Friend must speak for himself, but I can only assume that he has a long-standing constituency engagement that he was unable to break. The Secretary of State will note that the House is not packed on either side. Out of 400-odd Labour Members, only about 20 are present, so the Secretary of State's argument is not particularly good.
I should say to the Secretary of State, as he intervened, that I just hope that there is never an occasion on which British soldiers are left exposed and die because they do not have anti-personnel mines in their armoury. Only on Wednesday, the Secretary of State made a very good riposte to one of his hon. Friends who argued that Britain should ban nuclear weapons to set a good example. He said that it was fine to set good examples, but not much good following them. It seems to me that that argument could be used in this debate.
Hon. Members may have read a letter from the director of the Halo Trust in The Daily Telegraph. He said that it was marvellous that anti-personnel mines might be banned. He said that there were conferences here, there and everywhere, but he wished that, instead of spending money on air tickets, people would spend it on mine clearance. I pay tribute to the Government for increasing the amount of money that is being spent on clearance. Money is the core of the problem.
I am not against the Bill, but some things need to be aired. We need to look at the matter from all angles. It is worrying when the House is united. If there is not 1368 discussion of all the arguments, we sometimes pass extraordinary measures. In my limited experience of six years, I have seen one or two, and I know that others who have been here longer have seen one or two others. The Child Support Agency floats immediately to the top of the pile.
The problem that the world faces is clearing the mines. The hon. and learned Member for Invernesshire—

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell
North-East Fife. Inverness is about two hundred miles away.

§ Mr. Robathan
Geography was never my strong point. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that 20 mines were laid for every mine that was cleared. Yes, we have to stop mines being laid, but we have to do more clearance.
I do not believe that the Bill will help civilians throughout the world who are being killed. I do not believe that it will encourage China, Russia or others whose mines are being used to stop producing them. I would welcome a world without landmines and nuclear weapons, but I am not entirely sure that the Bill will further that aim.

§ Mr. Howard
With the leave of the House, I should like simply to say how sorry I am that we have not had time for more Second Reading speeches from the Back Benches. We have had two notable speeches—from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—and it is a shame that there was not time for more. I make it plain again that the official Opposition support the spirit of the Ottawa convention and will not obstruct the passage of the Bill, but we will continue to explore, during the Committee stage, the inconsistency between the Bill and the convention.

§ Mr. Robin Cook
With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate. To respond to the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has just made, I am sure that, in the remaining three and a half hours, there will be adequate time for the three Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber to speak.
Perhaps I may respond to the questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked in his opening speech to which I have not already responded in our exchanges. It is the case that the Ottawa convention and therefore the Bill bans all anti-personnel mines, whether or not they are associated with anti-tank mines. The JP233 and the Gator mine are caught by the Ottawa convention.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) touched on the serious problems of lifting mines that we face in the Falklands. Work was suspended because it was judged that the casualties were too high for the game. Nevertheless, we are seeking a feasibility study on how we can proceed with the best available technology to lift those mines.

§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey)
Will the Secretary of State give way?

§ Mr. Cook
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we have an agreement to finish by four minutes past 11, and I have a few points to make.
1369 The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe asked about the cost of destroying our stockpile. The Government, as a matter of policy, are carrying that out in any case, so it is not a cost that arises directly from the Bill. However, for the record, the cost of destroying Britain's stockpile of landmines will be some £5 million. I hope that that helps to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I could of course say that if he had accepted our offer of a technical briefing yesterday, some of his questions could have been answered then.
The House has already heard extensive arguments about clause 5, but what I have listened to leads me to expect that it is about to hear them again. The only point that I now make in response to that debate is that several hon. Members have rightly mentioned the extreme courage and dedication shown by members of the British Army when they carry out operations to lift landmines. I do not think that we can praise them for showing that courage and dedication and then leave them in any doubt about whether they may be liable for a prison sentence, not because they have deployed landmines but because they have taken part in an exercise in which someone else has deployed landmines. The least that we owe to those whom we ask to put their lives at risk is that we will not put their liberty at risk.

§ Mr. Colvin
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Cook
Very briefly.

§ Mr. Colvin
If a British soldier comes before a court for being in breach of the convention, will it be a civil court, a criminal court, a court martial or an international court?

§ Mr. Cook
I am advised by my right hon. and hon. Friends that in the event of British soldiers being brought to trial for any offence under the statute, there would be a court martial.
A number of hon. Members have taken part in the debate, but I cannot say with immense confidence that every one them supported the Bill; I have reservations about making such an assertion simply because I was not quite clear on which side the hon. Member for Blaby came down at the end of his speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman managed to persuade himself to support the Bill.
The others who took part in the debate fully and strongly supported the Bill. I entirely accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) about the fact that the most urgent priority now is to widen the signatories and those who have ratified the Ottawa convention so that it embraces not only the 126 countries that have already signed but the remaining countries, especially those who are large producers and exporters of landmines.
I agreed with many of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). 1370 Among other things, he asked whether the laying of landmines should be included as a war crime within the scope of the international criminal court. I understand why some people argue for that. In principle, it would not necessarily cause Britain great problems—but Britain is also one of the leading advocates of the international criminal court and is in the front rank of those trying to secure progress towards that court at the current conference in Rome. I do not think that it would be helpful in persuading other countries, especially America, to sign up to the international criminal court if we wrapped that up with this controversy too.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell
rose—

§ Mr. Cook
I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman on this occasion, as I have mentioned him, but this must be the last time I give way.

§ Mr. Campbell
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for responding so positively to my point. In the same context, may I say that I support and greatly admire the robust stance that the Government are taking with regard to the independence of the prosecutor for an international criminal court?

§ Mr. Cook
I am glad that I gave way to the hon. and learned Gentleman so that he could put that point on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) spoke eloquently and movingly, and rightly drew attention to the immense contribution made on this issue, and to the campaigns associated with it, by Diana, Princess of Wales. Like my hon. Friend, I wish that Princess Diana's bold statements had been as welcome on both sides of the House while she was alive, and not only when she died.
We can all be proud of Britain's record on this issue. In one year, we have halved our stockpile of landmines and doubled the contribution that we make to lifting landmines throughout the world. Britain played a leading part in the negotiations on the Ottawa convention: we signed it on the first day it was open for signature and we now have the opportunity to be among the first 40 countries to bring it into legal force. The way to do that is to give the Bill a Second Reading and to complete its remaining stages today. I commend that task to the House.