Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It had a good spin to it, but I am disappointed with it. Clearly, the Government are indifferent to the wishes of the 8,000 Normandy veterans and their families. This is the last big anniversary that many will be able to attend.

Do the Government accept that, by any standards, the 60th anniversary of D-day is an enormously significant occasion? D-day was the biggest single multi-service operation in the history of warfare. Its commemoration deserves our full support. Are the Government concerned that Britain will be put to shame by the Americans, Canadians and French?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The Government hold the D-day commemorations and the Normandy veterans in the highest esteem. In no way do we underestimate the value or significance of the 60th anniversary of D-day or the debt that we owe to the Normandy veterans.

In addition to the support that I outlined in my Answer, the Ministry of Defence is giving administrative assistance to the veterans going to

14 Oct 2002 : Column 591

Normandy, and the British Embassy in Paris will co-ordinate details with the French authorities in order to be helpful.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in asking the Minister to ensure that Bletchley Park is represented at the 60th anniversary commemorations, I declare an interest.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness gave great service in the Land Army and at Bletchley. There will be a tri-service commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Second World War, and I am sure that, in that commemoration, the people who worked at Bletchley Park and the Land Girls will be represented.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her Answer will give quite a little satisfaction to those of us who were there at the time? The memories abide with us, and we are still reminded of the friendships that we all had. It was so different from the social divisions that, at the moment, disfigure this country.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as well as the support that we are giving to the events that are being organised in France for the commemoration of D-day, the Government are also funding and organising the commemoration of three separate campaigns that have been put forward by the services: the Battle of Britain, which was celebrated in 2000; the battle of El Alamein, which will be celebrated on 23rd October this year; and the Battle of the Atlantic. In addition, the Government are supporting and funding a major commemoration of the end of the Second World War and there will be high-level representatives from government, all the services and, of course, the veterans themselves in those celebrations.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the 50th anniversary was commemorated in Normandy in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen and President Reagan? Will the Government carry out their planning on this occasion in plenty of time in order to enable British veterans who are considering participating, the youngest of whom will be in their late 70s, to make their plans and reservations?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, absolutely. The Government and the Normandy Veterans Association are already in planning discussions which will continue right up to the date in 2004. There are very good relations between the Normandy veterans and the Government on this matter and the Government will do all they can to support the veterans in what will be a memorable commemoration.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the recent construction of the Commonwealth Gates, which commemorate all those from the Commonwealth who gave their lives. However, do the Government think it appropriate that, as I noticed when passing the gates

14 Oct 2002 : Column 592

recently, the Millennium Commission has its own logo on these commemorative gates in a very prominent position? Is that a proper use of those gates?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on his question.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the War Widows Association of Great Britain is hoping to persuade the Caithness glass company to issue a poppy paperweight to commemorate the event?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I was not aware, and I delighted to hear the news from the noble Baroness.

International Criminal Court: US Immunity

2.52 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they propose to negotiate with the United States a bilateral immunity agreement under Article 98 of the statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we are beginning discussions with the United States on the possibility of a bilateral agreement. We will ensure that any agreement which emerges will be consistent with our obligations under the statute of the International Criminal Court and within the guiding principles agreed between EU Foreign Ministers on 30th September.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reassurance, and recognise the part played by the United Kingdom Government in preserving what has been achieved. Will she confirm that the American neuroses are quite groundless because the jurisdiction of the court will be activated only if an accused's own country fails to bring him to trial? Can it be explained to the American Government that, for a country which is demanding that those who commit horrific crimes should be held internationally accountable, it is hardly consistent to undermine the jurisdiction which exists for that very purpose, and that if President Bush wished to appear as a champion of international legality, it would be more persuasive if he behaved like one?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend that in our view adequate safeguards exist in the statute. However, we do understand US objections, although we do not share them. We value the US role in international peacekeeping and we want to enable the United States to continue to play that role. It is in that spirit that we are looking at the possibility of a bilateral agreement.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Italian Government have

14 Oct 2002 : Column 593

said that they are also sympathetic to a bilateral agreement and that Israel, Romania and several other countries have made such bilateral agreements? Given that there is overwhelming opposition in Congress to submitting to the jurisdiction of the court; given that the President of the United States has said that he would rather withdraw from international peacekeeping operations than submit to the jurisdiction of the court, even if we in this country disagree and believe groundless the fears of the American Administration; and given their importance to international peacekeeping is it not common sense, in the short run at least, to comply with what they want?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are contemplating a bilateral agreement precisely for those reasons. That is why the EU guiding principles agreed on 30th September are so important. Those state parties to the ICC statute which have signed bilateral agreements are East Timor, the Gambia, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Romania and Tajikistan, although they all still require parliamentary approval. With respect to Italy, a US team will be visiting a number of European countries in October, including the United Kingdom, and I think Italy is one of the countries on the itinerary.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Minister may be aware of Shakespeare's words in Measure for Measure:

    "O! it is excellent

    To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous

    To use it like a giant".

Does she agree that that exactly describes the way in which the Bush Administration is behaving? Does she agree that the USA is using its strength tyrannously to force other countries into signing Article 98 agreements? Does she also agree that the attitude of the USA over this matter is simply an echo of its attitude over other matters such as its refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol or to enter into the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that there are a number of areas in which our policy differs from that of the United States. What we have sought to do with respect to the ICC statute is to meet United States' concerns while at the same time preserving the importance that we attach to that statute. Contained in the guiding principles, which were agreed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in September, are a number of limitations on the scope of the arrangements with respect to impunity, reciprocity and scope of persons. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail of that agreement if that would be helpful.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the United States is by far the most heavily committed peacekeeping nation by virtue of its size and strength, surely in practice we should be doing everything possible to avoid deterring it from an effective

14 Oct 2002 : Column 594

peacekeeping role and therefore doing everything possible under Article 98(2), without in any way undermining the Rome statute, to meet the Americans' worries and assist them. Is that not the right way forward? We on this side would encourage the Government to seek a bilateral agreement.

Furthermore, have not the Germans stated that in no way do they wish to join in any bilateral agreement? If so, does that cause any problems with the European Union as a whole? Are we in fact bound by the European Union in what we should do to help our American allies?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page