§ Mr. CohenI beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Article 8.14 of the Ottawa convention states that any state party that is subject to a fact-finding mission "shall" grant access. However, the Bill states that the Secretary of State "may" authorise access for such a mission. That allows the possibility of may not, but "shall" allows no such negative. The implementing legislation should contain the same word as the convention. Can the Minister assure the House that there are no circumstances in which authorisation would not be given to a fact-finding mission in the United Kingdom?
Fact-finding verification missions are important, and I would not want the Government to block them or to encourage a formula that would enable other 1403 Governments to block them by claiming a UK precedent. The amendment is simple and I hope that it will be accepted.
§ Mr. KeyI should like to raise a point on behalf of the Halo Trust. It was approached by a Canadian human rights organisation which demanded minefield information on current tactical minefields between two countries. When the trust suggested that that was not an appropriate inquiry, the organisation quoted the Ottawa convention with veiled threats. The Halo Trust is not sure whether the rules for fact-finding missions and information and records apply only to fact-finding missions between states under article 8 of the convention or whether it also applies to humanitarian organisations. Furthermore, the trust is not sure whether the rules also apply to missions whose representatives speak to UK nationals working overseas. Some paragraphs suggest that that applies only in the United Kingdom.
The Halo Trust has raised the point because if missions visit humanitarian mine-clearance programmes overseas and demand minefield information, UK demining staff—for example those working for the Halo Trust—would perhaps by law have to hand over the information, even if it were privileged. For example, it could have come from local military commanders as a result of trust being built up between Halo Trust staff and local commanders in countries that had not signed up to the ban. If those commanders thought that non-governmental organisation workers were passing privileged information to the UK, they might not allow any access by international humanitarian staff. Therefore, the Bill's effect might be to reduce humanitarian mine clearance, which I am sure is not the intention. In some mined countries that are emerging from civil war, the distribution of privileged information about mines by international NGO workers could be considered even as espionage.
This is a slightly difficult area and the Minister of State may not be able to respond to it immediately, but I should be grateful if he could perhaps respond by letter, so that we can pursue the matter—[Interruption.] I am delighted that he says that he can do it now.
§ Mr. David HeathI support the amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for—
§ Mr. HeathI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was thinking Leytonstone. I listened carefully to him, as I always do, particularly with the news that his lineage has been carefully researched over the past few weeks and the news of the bearers of his surname. He demands even greater respect.
It seems an odd anomaly that the word "may" is used in this context. Surely, Britain would always wish, under any circumstances, to co-operate with a fact-finding mission under the convention. When I say that, I do not question the Government's motives, and I do not want to hear the claim that we had earlier that we are undermining a positive move towards ratification of the Ottawa convention and everything that goes with it. However, the fact remains that a future Government may not be so well disposed. A future Secretary of State may have some scintilla of doubt about the application of the convention. In drafting the legislation, we must leave no area of ambiguity.
1404 Curiously, reading further on in the clause, the word "shall" is used on a number of occasions. Once the Secretary of State, under subsection (1), has decided to issue an authorisation, the content of that authorisation is no longer a matter for his consideration, because the word "shall" appears in subsequent subsections, including, incidentally, the subsection on the overriding of the control functions of constables, which provides that they shall provide assistance. That is wholly welcome.
I am curious—perhaps the Minister of State can help me on this—whether the same provision applies to Customs and Excise officers and to the security services. I assume that, when he responds, he will say that the provision is analagous to that of other Acts that provide similar international obligations. However, perhaps he will explain why this word "may" is used, or do something better than that: accept the amendment, so that we have no doubt as to the position of not only this Government, but any future British Government in respect of the Ottawa convention.
§ Mr. Tony LloydI have no intention of rushing to the defence that this is an attempt to subvert the Bill. The amendment is a different proposition from the clear wrecking amendment that the Opposition tabled under clause 5. I accept that the motivation of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and the hon. Member for Frome—
§ Mr. LloydI want to give the hon. Gentleman the Frome and not the Somerton. I accept that he, the hon. Member for Salisbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) genuinely want to serve the purpose of the Bill.
The clause provides the power under which the Secretary of State can allow fact-finding missions to take place; it is not the manner in which the Secretary of State finds himself placed under a duty to make facilities available for such a fact-finding mission. The distinction is not unimportant. Under domestic law, clearly, it is necessary to give the Secretary of State the power by which he can facilitate fact-finding missions. That is sensible, and it is right and proper that it should be in the Bill. Once we ratify the convention, under international law, there will be a duty on the Secretary of State to allow for those fact-finding missions to enter this country. There is therefore no ambiguity about the intent. The duty will exist at the point of ratification and when the convention comes into force.
§ Mr. David HeathI understand the Minister's point, but if he were to change the word "may" to "shall", he would combine the duty with the power and incorporate both into British law, which seems a more satisfactory solution.
§ Mr. LloydI am certainly not a lawyer—indeed, it is many years since I ceased to pretend to be a logician—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that although I understand what he says, it simply is not necessary to do as he suggests. The shadow Foreign Secretary failed to grasp the fact that the Bill is not the 1405 only way in which the Ottawa convention will be brought into operation. His inability to grasp the simple arguments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces was the source of his confusion. The law and the other procedures that bring the convention into operation already exist in other fields, or will exist under international law on ratification of the treaty.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly asked about parallels. The convention on chemical weapons, for example, uses exactly the same form of words in respect of fact-finding missions. In respect of the convention on chemical weapons or the landmine legislation, it is inconceivable that any British Secretary of State would seek to place himself outwith the spirit or, more important, the letter of international law. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that what is in the Bill is sufficient. We could go beyond that, but I assure the Committee that it is not necessary.
I refer the hon. Member for Salisbury to clause 27, which defines a fact-finding mission as
"a fact-finding mission under Article 8 of the Ottawa Convention".That is important because a fact-finding mission under this part of the Bill is restricted to the Ottawa convention definition, which is agreed by states that are party to the convention. It could not lead to the problems mentioned today. I hope that I have managed to reassure the hon. Gentleman and those who asked him to express their concerns. If that reassurance is not adequate—although it seems that the hon. Member for Salisbury is indicating that it is—I invite him and those who raised matters with him to come back to me. I shall then attempt to set their minds at rest. However, I assure the Committee that it is not necessary to pursue the amendment, and that all the concerns expressed are covered in the Bill.
§ Mr. CohenThe Minister says that what is in the Bill is sufficient. Verification is important, and there must be freedom of access if the treaty is to work and if there is to be confidence that it will work.
I note what the Minister said about the Bill's provisions being in addition to a duty to allow access under the Ottawa convention. In that case, I do not understand why he cannot accept the amendment. However. I assume from his comments that there would be no circumstances in which a Secretary of State would not allow access under the treaty—I see that he is nodding. He used the word "inconceivable" in that context so, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
§ Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 14 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Bill reported, without amendment.
§ Order for Third Reading read.
1.34 pm§ Mr. George RobertsonI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Last year, one of the first visits I made as the new Secretary of State for Defence was to Bosnia, to visit our troops in multinational division south-west. I do not think 1406 that it was an accident that my Ministry decided that that should be my first visit. I have graphic memories not only of the service men and women who were serving there and of the dedicated and risky job that they do for us, but of Bosnia's physical and political scenery. That scenery has improved considerably since my visit, providing great testimony of the necessity both of that intervention and of the subsequent role played by our armed services—in stopping the fighting, killing, concentration camps, mass rape and torture occurring on our own continent, in rebuilding shattered communities and in allowing the Bosnian people the breathing space to grow their own new democratic institutions.
Flying over some parts of Bosnia in a British Army helicopter, one's breath was taken away by the physical beauty of the countryside. Flying over Glamoc, for example, one saw dazzling scenery of green spaces and tiny villages. One could not help being attracted to that country. However, one could not land in a helicopter or walk round Glamoc, as it had been riddled and contaminated by the thousands of anti-personnel landmines that were left behind by the warring factions as a legacy—which will continue for many years—to the conflict.
Seeing Glamoc brought home to me the depth of the problem, even more so than when I stood in a minefield outside Mostar, dressed in the cumbersome equipment—of which I am continually reminded by the replay of embarrassing pictures—that is required to enter a minefield. People continue to live and daily to risk their lives and limbs in Glamoc, as its surrounding countryside is covered with undetected mines.
There is therefore an unfinished mission that—for people living in Bosnia and in so many other countries around the world—is not only political or visionary but real and practical. That is why this debate, the Bill and our ratification of the convention are all so important, not only for us and the United Kingdom's credibility but for all humanity. I feel a burning sense of duty to ensure that the campaign continues, not only to ratify the Ottawa convention ourselves but to persuade countries that have not yet signed it and are still manufacturing, exporting and sowing anti-personnel landmines to stop those activities.
Although the House will pass the Landmines Bill in only one day, we have had a full and vigorous debate. The Opposition have highlighted some points of interest, contention and debate. However, they have taken themselves to a logically ludicrous position, essentially telling us that we should not ratify the treaty. They appear to be saying that only by amending the treaty—and that is impossible—can we give our armed forces safety and security. I do not find that a particularly practical position, but they have retreated from opposing the Bill, and I welcome their co-operation in taking the Bill so quickly and at such short notice.
Our success in dealing with the measure in one day demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue in the House, and that must be welcome. It is also a fitting tribute to the enduring memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the work that she did, more than so many others, to draw attention to the evil effect of anti-personnel landmines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a moving speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead 1407 (Mr. Cohen). My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) referred to the parallel universe that the Opposition appear to inhabit in respect of this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) also made powerful speeches. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who is not in his place, used his Army experience to some effect. He articulated a practical view that will be recognised by many soldiers, including the vast majority who now believe that anti-personnel landmines are a form of warfare which must be abandoned and outlawed for ever.
The debate has underlined the fact that the Government's policy on anti-personnel landmines that we adopted last year has been the right one. I am glad that we have been able to fulfil the pledge that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I made 13 months ago when we came to power and took instant action on the issue. When it comes into force, the Bill will ensure that no British soldier will ever use an anti-personnel landmine again; no British company will be allowed to manufacture anti-personnel landmines; no one anywhere will ever be able to acquire anti-personnel landmines from a British source; and our operational stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines will be eliminated.
We have also ensured that members of our armed forces cannot be prosecuted for planning and operating alongside those from states for which the use of anti-personnel landmines remains legal. That is the right thing to do, and I welcome the recognition that the House has now given that today. Of course, any such protection for our armed forces will become increasingly unnecessary as more states sign and ratify the Ottawa convention. In that context, I welcome the announcement by the United States Government of their intention, at least in principle, to sign the Ottawa convention by 2006. That will provide a big boost towards our final goal. It also shows the inexorable public pressure that is now rightly exerted on all Governments.
There is still a long way to go. No country can measure its achievements merely by reference to its own efforts. The problem of anti-personnel landmines is a global one which requires a global effort. Achieving complete elimination of anti-personnel landmines remains a key objective for the Government, and we will use all our influence and endeavours in the international scene to exactly that effort.
Regrettably, some states do not feel ready or able to sign the convention. For those that have not, the quoted reasons are primarily connected with national security and the need to develop alternative capabilities. However, a comprehensive ban must be exactly that; the Ottawa convention provides a goal to which we have to encourage all states in the world to aspire. That means working closely with those states, recognising their security concerns while persuading them not to rely on such weapons, but to seek alternative and better means of providing their security. It may cost money; it may cause apprehension; but what is that compared with the human costs that are otherwise involved?
We must continue our efforts to demine the world. My Department will continue to play a significant role in that. I am pleased to inform the House that the mine information and training centre that I announced last October is now fully operational. As my right hon. Friend 1408 the Foreign Secretary said, it is running mine awareness courses on a large scale. Some 2,000 students have already completed its expert courses. It continues to look for ways to help NGOs with mine clearance. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency also plays a valuable role in developing new techniques, and will continue to do so.
So our work does not end here today with this legislation. There is still much to do, and we will do it. I commend the Bill to the House, and wish it a smooth passage through the Lords.
§ Mr. KeyLast October, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and I, on behalf of the Opposition, welcomed the signing of the Oslo agreement. We pointed out that it was severely weakened because it did not include major manufacturers of landmines such as China, Russia and Pakistan. We said that the debate on landmines had rightly focused on negotiations for a future ban, but that the problem required a dual approach—working towards a ban and removing existing mines. We offered consensus on the issue of anti-personnel landmines. We recognised that mines had had a military purpose, and that we should work to encourage the development of alternatives that could achieve that purpose without the appalling risk to civilians. We continue to support the Government's resourcing of mine clearance operations whether directly or through agencies as the Halo Trust.
Television pictures bring into our homes the horrors of wars in far-off lands and the horrendous impact that indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines have on innocent civilians. We all remember the scenes of the visit to Angola by Diana, Princess of Wales, which gave such global momentum to the cause of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Within our own continent, some of us here have visited Bosnia and seen the devastating impact of mines on that country and its people.
On Friday 13 May 1955, which happened to be in the middle of a general election campaign, when I was just 10 years old, a British anti-personnel landmine laid on Swanage beach to defend against wartime invaders was uncovered by a party of schoolchildren of whom I was one. By a stroke of fate, I and a friend got bored and returned to our sandcastle at the water's edge. A few minutes later, the explosion killed five of my friends. British children killed by a British mine. I believe that I am the luckiest man alive in the House today. I know how children and their parents feel in such traumatic circumstances, so it is with a real sense of pride that I stand at this Dispatch Box today giving a fair wind to the Bill.
It is also true that my military constituency in Salisbury has ensured that I understand why our service men continue to feel the need for battlefield protection by anti-personnel landmines. They are usually the very same people who are motivated to extremes of bravery when they put their lives at risk in mining operations both during their service and when they have retired. We must all recognise that ratification of the Ottawa convention will mean that our armed forces lose a significant military capacity, and that defensive landmines are effective in redressing the balance in favour of the user in the face of an assault by superior forces.
1409 I agree with the Secretary of State that this is not the end. Today is the beginning of a new era. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues will, I know, address the question of how British soldiers will continue to have effective defensive protection. In 1996, the previous Government asked DERA to conduct studies of non-lethal obstacles for peacekeeping operations. I look forward to hearing what progress has been made.
There are viable alternatives to anti-personnel landmines. They may make static defence systems such as minefields increasingly irrelevant. I wonder how far the Ministry of Defence has got with remote surveillance methods such as electronic sensory devices, real-time satellite intelligence, drone aircraft with infra red and photographic capabilities and so on. How advanced are replacement technologies, ranging from non-lethal devices such as entanglement nets, slippery agents, foam and obscurants to Claymore-type mines that are activated by command through remote surveillance methods that automatically activate other forms of ordnance?
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, the Bill is a very imperfect animal. There is much unfinished business here. It must receive close scrutiny in another place, but we have made a start today and we give the Bill a fair wind.
§ Mr. Menzies CampbellIn the cockpit of frenetic exchange today, it has sometimes been easy to forget the purpose for which we are here. We pass lots of legislation in the House, but there can rarely have been—
It being a quarter of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [9 July], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.