§ Lord Campbell of Allowayasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether rules of engagement have been ordained for all coalition forces in Iraq concerning the opening of fire other than in self-defence, when death or injury may be occasioned, on refusal to stop a vehicle at a road block; and, if so, whether compliance with such rules affords any immunity from legal process.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)My Lords, it has been the practice of successive United Kingdom governments not to comment on certain aspects of operational policy, including rules of engagement. Any such information could potentially be of use to the enemy and put the lives of our servicemen and women deployed on operations at risk. I am, therefore, withholding this information under exemption one of the code of practice on access to government information. The United Kingdom's rules of engagement do not strictly in law provide UK service personnel with immunity from the UK legal process. However, they are robust and are drawn up in accordance with international and domestic law. Therefore, acting within the rules is very likely in practice to provide protection from prosecution.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that somewhat enigmatic reply. May I ask what is the actual position of our Armed Forces in these lethal hostile conditions—some 20 attacks a day, no civil power—when they, in the course of duty, open fire to enforce a road block, to search for weapons, or to guard essential facilities from sabotage? What is the position?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord thought that my reply was enigmatic. I hoped that it was clear. The noble Lord asks a good second question but it is one that he knows, as he asks it, that I am not able to answer in any detail at all. He himself has had distinguished careers both in the Armed Forces and in the law and he will know that it is the combination of those two things that make it difficult for me to say any more than I did in my original Answer, save to repeat that the rules of engagement are indeed robust.
§ Lord Astor of HeverMy Lords, in the light of the first part of the Minister's response to my noble friend 600 Lord Campbell of Alloway, will he consider an off-the-record briefing for both opposition defence spokesmen and those in the House who need to know about the matter?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who was good enough to advise me beforehand of the question that he might ask. That question is currently being considered by the Ministry of Defence. I shall, of course, write to the noble Lord, to his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and to noble Lords on the Cross Benches as soon as a decision is reached. We shall try to be as sympathetic as we can.
§ Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, I believe the Minister said in his first Answer that if troops kept within the rules that was very likely to afford protection. Why is it not certain to afford protection?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, the reason it cannot be certain in law is because rules of engagement are for guidance only and do not constitute law, which is for the courts to determine. I shall try to assist by making the distinction between immunity from legal process— which is the subject of the Question—where there can be no guarantee that legal process may be instituted, and practical consequences. Where a member of the Armed Forces acts within the rules of engagement— that could, of course, be a matter for the court eventually to have to decide—the matter is unlikely to go to court and almost certainly would not result in a finding of liability or guilt.
§ Lord Hannay of ChiswickMy Lords, will the noble Lord be so kind as to explain what in the circumstances of the Iraq of today constitutes the enemy?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, the potential enemy are all those, wherever and whoever they are, who seek to engage British forces in a hostile manner.