My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support for this amendment and Roger O’Keefe, Professor of Public International Law, University College London, for his briefing. The issue here is one of clarity, consistency and accuracy. The term “violation” was adopted by the conference finalising the Second Protocol and my understanding is that this was done quite deliberately so that the terminology would be distinct from that used in the Geneva Convention: namely, the term “breach”. I appreciate that the legislation to ratify this convention around the world will be in different languages. However, it does seem logical that the terminology used in English ought to follow the terminology in English of the Hague Convention itself.
There are two additional problems. One is the inconsistent use of terminology. The word “breach” is used in the heading of Clause 3, which I cannot myself alter by an amendment, yet the term “violation” occurs in the text on page 2 at line 7, so both terms are used in the same clause, which is confusing. The more serious issue is that “violation” in the text is not referred to here as “serious violation”, although “serious breach” is used in the heading, which would distinguish this kind of violation in Article 15 of the Second Protocol from the so-called “other violations” in Article 21. This is important because it is a question of the order of violation referred to. It needs to be changed.
As the Minister herself said at Second Reading, the meaning of “breach” and “violation” is the same. But this is not the point. The issue here is one of consistency and accuracy of use. At the moment it is perhaps a little too sloppy. The 2008 draft Bill used the same terminology as the current Bill, so the Government have inherited it. Will the Minister look at this closely to see if these changes can be made? I beg to move.