Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 46:



("(1A) In this Part a "United Kingdom resident" means a person who is resident in the United Kingdom.").

[Amendment No. 47, as an amendment to Amendment No. 46, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 46 agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 48:


    After Clause 67, insert the following new clause--

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PERSONS BECOMING RESIDENT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

(" .--(1) This section applies in relation to a person who commits acts outside the United Kingdom at a time when he is not a United Kingdom national, a United Kingdom resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction and who subsequently becomes resident in the United Kingdom.
(2) Proceedings may be brought against such a person in England and Wales or Northern Ireland for a substantive offence under this Part if--
(a) he is resident in the United Kingdom at the time the proceedings are brought, and
(b) the acts in respect of which the proceedings are brought would have constituted that offence if they had been committed in that part of the United Kingdom.

8 Mar 2001 : Column 436


(3) Proceedings may be brought against such a person in England and Wales or Northern Ireland for an offence ancillary to a substantive offence under this Part (or what would be such a substantive offence if committed in that part of the United Kingdom) if--
(a) he is resident in the United Kingdom at the time the proceedings are brought, and
(b) the acts in respect of which the proceedings are brought would have constituted that offence if they had been committed in that part of the United Kingdom.
(4) In this section "substantive offence" means an offence other than an ancillary offence.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be read as restricting the operation of any other provision of this Part.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 80 [Index of defined expressions]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 49:


    Page 40, line 37, at end insert--


    ("United Kingdom residentsection 67(1A)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 81 [Commencement]:

[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]

Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 51:


    Page 40, line 42, at end insert--


("( ) An order may not be made under this section until all those countries which have ratified the Statute of the ICC have made their assessed contributions required under Article 115 for the operation of the Court.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 51 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52. Amendment No. 51 is a commencement provision and suggests that an order should not be made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 until all those countries that have ratified the statute have made their assessed contributions required under Article 115 for the operation of the court.

Technically this may not be the right way to make this point, but I make the suggestion that for this court to operate universally and to command respect it has to be backed, and backed with resources from all those who can afford to pay--those who have been assessed as being required to make a contribution. This great institution is supported by the freedom-loving countries of Zimbabwe and Iran but not by the United States. Will Zimbabwe and Iran make their contributions before the court is up and running?

This institution is not one that will be backed by the United States, so funding will have to come from other countries. My point is that I believe that the credibility of the institution will be at stake--I wonder whether I can have the attention of the Minister--if those who support it, with all the high declarations, are not actually prepared to put money into it.

There are concerns about the Yugoslav war tribunals, but they have been financed only by a minority of states and disproportionately by Muslim states. Some people have been concerned about that. The principle in this amendment is that for the court to have credibility the financing should be provided by all

8 Mar 2001 : Column 437

those who lend their authority and the names of their countries to the great declarations that we have been discussing.

Amendment No. 52 refers to voluntary contributions. Under Article 116 of the statute, most extraordinarily, provision is made for voluntary contributions from individuals, corporations and other entities. I ask the Minister, what kind of court is it that is partly privately financed? How can one have a court which is to some extent financed by NGOs, by pressure groups? The Minister will know that I previously raised the question about the Yugoslav war tribunals. Some of the equipment in those courts has been provided by private organisations. Mr Soros provided some of the money and some of the equipment. I have nothing against him but I ask whether it is appropriate for a court. What kind of court will be financed by private individuals, corporations and other entities?

I have sought a limit of 5 per cent because to have a court that is financed to a greater extent by private sources would call into doubt the impartiality of the court. It should not be captured by private organisations. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no state will pay an assessed contribution until the court is up and running. Even more fundamentally, no state will pay an assessed contribution until a first assembly of states parties have adopted the financial rules and regulations of the court, determined at the first budget of the court and agreed on the scale of assessment.

In practice, therefore, the effect of these amendments would be to delay UK ratification until all that has happened. In other words, the amendments would frustrate the Government's intention of the UK being among the court's founding members.

We believe it is important that we should be at the first assembly of states parties. We think that not only because we think it is right that Britain, in view of her foremost contribution to international law and the development of human rights, should be represented at the outset of this historic and noble enterprise. We believe it also because unless we are there, Britain will have no opportunity to influence the issues about which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has expressed concern.

On the question of assessed contributions, Article 117 of the Rome Statute provides that the scale of assessment shall be based on the scale adopted by the United Nations for its regular budget. I do not think

8 Mar 2001 : Column 438

that that should cause any of your Lordships any particular concerns: we of course pay our fair share of the UN regular budget and we will of course have to pay our fair share of the ICC's costs.

The noble Lord expressed concern about other states failing to pay on time. This is not a problem which has escaped the notice of ourselves or the other states involved in the negotiation. Article 112.8 of the statute already provides that a state party in unjustified arrears will lose its vote in the assembly of states parties.

The noble Lord was also worried about undue reliance on voluntary funding. I hope that I can set his concerns to rest. Article 115 already makes it clear that the expenses of the court will come from the assessed contributions and from funds provided by the United Nations. So the fundamental operation of the court and its prosecutor will come from assured funding. As for voluntary funding, the first assembly of states parties will determine the criteria on when and to what extent voluntary funding can be accepted. That is one more reason for the UK to be represented at that first assembly.

It is extremely important that the ICC must indeed work in an efficient, cost-effective and independent manner, with adequate, reliable funding and proper financial oversight. As to that point, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord. That was what our negotiators worked towards last week at the ICC preparatory commission as they dealt with the court's financial rules and regulations. They will continue to do that when the United Kingdom is a state party to the ICC.

I hope that that puts at rest the mind of the noble Lord and enables him to withdraw his amendment. I am confident that the noble Lord does not wish to disable this country from making proper, cogent arguments to ensure the efficient operation of the new court.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful for the reply of the noble Baroness, which I shall study. Obviously, my motive is not to disable the court in any way. I was puzzled about the role of private voluntary contributions. I remain somewhat puzzled and am a little disturbed by their role in the Yugoslav war tribunals. But in view of the response of the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

        House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page