§ 2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF WOOLTONMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government in consideration of the following facts—
2 when it is proposed to fulfil their undertaking given in this 1-louse to ratify the Convention.]
- (1) that Her Majesty's Government signed, with one reservation, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (including the new Fourth Convention dealing with the protection of civilians in time of war);
- (2) that Sir Anthony Eden announced in Parliament on November 1, 1956, that although certain legislation was required before Her Majesty's Government could ratify these Conventions. Her Majesty's Government accepted the Conventions and had every intention of applying their conditions should the occasion arise; and
- (3) that Great Britain is one of the few great nations amongst the sixty-one who signed the 1949 Conventions that have not yet ratified then;
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Gosford, I have been asked to reply. Certain domestic legislation is necessary before the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 can be ratified by Her Majesty's Government. This legislation is in the course of preparation, and Her Majesty's Government hope to present it during the next Parliamentary Session. The Conventions will be ratified as soon as the legislation in question is enacted.
THE EARL OF WOOLTONMy Lords, I regret that I cannot regard that as a very satisfactory reply, in view of the considerable length of time that has elapsed since the Government signed these Conventions. Eight years seems to me just a little long, though I am bound to admit that during part of that time I was a member of the Government. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the forthcoming International Red Cross Conference in Delhi in October, 1957, they cannot hasten ratification. I imagine that the legislation would not take a great deal of your Lordships' time. In view of what the Prime Minister said in another place, we seem to be committed to this Convention, and I would therefore ask whether it would not be possible to hasten bringing the required legislation before Parliament?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, will willingly convey to my right 3 honourable friend the Foreign Secretary the views which the noble Earl has expressed.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKMy Lords, arising out of the original Question by the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, might I ask the noble Earl, Lord Munster, a question or two about the state of affairs in the interim period before ratification becomes possible? I think your Lordships' House is entitled, after all these years, to a carefully considered reply. I know that these are difficult questions; but if, as was stated in replies on this subject, both in this House last November and in another place, domestic legislation is a prerequisite to our ratification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, may we assume that, until legislation is passed and ratification occurs, our national position falls short of the optimum in some way? And, if so, in exactly what way? If, on the other hand, we continue to use the undignified current procedure of ad hoc declarations of intention to observe these Conventions, as in the cases of Korea and Egypt, how can we implement our part in such observance if we have not passed the domestic legislation which is a prerequisite, as we are told, to full observance of these Conventions after ratification?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I think the answer is quite clear: that of course Her Majesty's Government would be bound by legislation which would ultimately be passed. Until that time, we shall fall short of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, does that mean that in the interim the Government would not feel a moral duty to observe the conditions of the Convention which they have signed, even though they have not been ratified?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, we should certainly have the moral duty—that is perfectly true.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKMy Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, it appears to me that this country is in a position which is not one that any of us would wish to see prolonged one minute more than necessary. Nor, I think, is it one which will be understood, 4 either nationally or internationally. Therefore, as I say, while thanking the noble Earl, I should like to put it on record that I may wish to raise this matter in debate.