HL Deb 06 February 1997 vol 577 cc1812-6

6.17 p.m.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill was introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Hendon South, John Marshall. With all-party support it enjoyed a very speedy passage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey for entrusting me with the task of shepherding the Bill through your Lordships' House. I am delighted to do so, but I fear that it will take a little longer than it did in the other place, which was approximately 30 seconds.

The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the UN Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. The convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9th December 1994. It was signed by the United Kingdom in December 1995. While it is unlikely that many cases of offences against UN personnel will arise in the UK, the convention is clearly a desirable measure.

There already exists legal regulation of combatants in international armed conflict, but no instrument has yet prohibited or provided legal remedies for attacks against forces performing traditional "non-combat peace-keeping functions". With the increase in number of such operations, and rising casualties to UN personnel, UN member states agree that there is a need for an international agreement to deter and provide for punishment of such attacks.

The convention addresses that problem by creating a regime for prosecution or extradition of persons accused of attacking UN peacekeepers and other persons associated with UN operations.

Clauses 1 and 2 create extra-territorial jurisdiction over offences committed in relation to attacks on UN workers and their premises and vehicles. Clause 3 creates a new offence; namely, the making of a threat to commit attacks against UN workers with the objective of compelling a person to do or refrain from doing any act. Clause 6 makes offences under the Bill extraditable as between the United Kingdom and all parties to the convention.

As I have said, this is a simple, non-controversial Bill. Although it has 10 clauses, it is nevertheless a short Bill. I commend it to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—{Lord Brougham and Vaux.)

6.20 p.m.

Viscount Colville of Culross

My Lords, I would not normally have spoken on a measure of this sort; nor do I believe that there is any way in which we can possibly pass legislation which alters the convention that this Bill seeks to implement. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham, has had no notice of the point that I have made.

I have a specific interest in this, or, that is to say, I used to have one, because I think I am the only person who has ever been a special rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and I used to carry out my commission, as it were, in Guatemala. I was there for about four years. Nothing happened to me, as your Lordships can see. I was extremely well looked after but if I had had a problem and had the Government sought to extradite someone from anywhere to be tried in this country under the provisions of this Bill, I wonder what would have happened.

It is, I believe, for the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, rather than the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, to consider Clause 4, which contains a definition of a UN operation. Clause 4(2) states that a UN operation is one, which is established … by an organ of the United Nations". Undoubtedly my responsibility was laid down by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. It was certainly conducted under the authority and control of the UN but whether it had, as its purpose the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security as mentioned in Clause 4(2)(c)(i), or whether there existed "an exceptional risk", as mentioned in Clause 4(2)(c)(ii), was not something that had ever been declared by anyone. If it had not been declared by anyone—I refer to Clause 4(2)(a)—and if the words "and" or "or" are not included, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the courts in this country one does not know whether someone who was doing the kind of job I was doing, which had not been declared to be of exceptional risk, is covered by the Bill.

I accept that Clause 4(5) refers to a certificate, but I am not sure what my insurers might have said about that—I did not have any and I was not particularly worried. If we are to implement this Bill we need to know what sort of case we shall be able to deal with in the courts in this country. Cases might well be dealt with in a Crown Court, such as the one in which I sit. We need to have a certain amount of clarity about what measure in the convention we are implementing.

If something is lacking in Clause 4(2)(a), which tells us whether a UN operation has to be established by an organ of the UN and all the rest of it, or not as the case may be, I am not sure that there will not be an argument about jurisdiction in this country in the remote event of such a thing we have discussed occurring. I do not think the convention goes into that sort of detail. The measure before us is the result of British drafting. It may be worth looking at the measure again to make sure that we have not made a small error here. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could at some time—not today—apply his mind to that.

6.24 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Blackstone who would have wished to be here but, regrettably, is unable to be present. She asked me to say on her behalf that we on these Benches give the Bill a warm welcome. It will serve to meet a purpose which has been perceived by John Marshall in another place, a man who has my utmost respect. The need for the Bill has been born out of experience.

I can well imagine that the relatives and friends of people who perform humanitarian duties in places of conflict must find it tragic that, while those people seek to be peacemakers, they may somehow or other become involved in situations where they are either threatened or come under attack or, in attempting to keep the peace, become victims of violence. The Bill seeks to create extraterritorial jurisdiction with regard to those crimes. In the War Crimes Bill we attempted to put in place a similar provision and we have seen the trouble that has arisen as a result of that. The noble Viscount on the Cross-Benches has made a point which is worth considering. It would be a tragedy if in this fraught timetable of the present Parliament anything were done to inhibit the passage of the Bill. No one can object to it. The noble Viscount did not object to it. He referred to an interesting point which I am sure can be put right, if necessary by amendment. I very much hope that there is no need to delay the passage of the Bill. As I have said, we on these Benches give it a warm welcome.

6.26 p.m.

Lord Chesham

My Lords, I thank everyone for the welcome they have given the Bill. We on these Benches also welcome it. I refer first of all to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Under Clause 4(5) provision is made as regards any dispute over what constitutes a UN operation. I hope that is a satisfactory answer to his question. If he is not satisfied, I shall of course write to him.

The Bill's purpose is to protect the men and women who under the auspices of the United Nations put themselves at personal risk while serving the international community. It is inevitable that with an increasing number of UN peacekeeping operations (currently there are 17), more UN personnel, both military and civilian, are put at risk. The number of casualties has increased in parallel. We owe it to those men and women who work for the UN in any capacity, but particularly in the danger which often occurs in peacekeeping operations, to ensure that arrangements are in place for their physical protection. It is clear to UN member states that there is a need for an international agreement to deter and punish attacks on operation personnel. This is entirely consistent with the international community's long-standing acceptance that there should be rules governing international armed conflict, for example in the Geneva Conventions. But this should apply not only to war. Those bringing peace should be equally entitled to international protection.

Realistic measures which allow UN peacekeepers to deploy safely are therefore vital. For this reason, on 3rd May 1994 the Security Council drew up specific criteria for peacekeeping operations which included provision regarding the physical protection of UN personnel. As my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux has already mentioned, the United Nations Convention on the Safety and Security of United Nations and Associated Personnel was adopted on 9th December 1994. The convention commits parties to prosecute perpetrators of attacks upon UN workers wherever they had been committed and to make such offences extraditable. The United Kingdom signed the convention in December 1995. This Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify that convention.

The Bill as drafted therefore creates extra-territorial jurisdiction over such offences. It ensures that offenders can be tried in this country, wherever their offences occurred, and makes their offences extraditable as between the UK and all states which are parties to the convention.

Only one new offence is required; namely, the offence of making a threat to commit an attack against a UN worker with the objective of compelling a person to do or refrain from doing any act. The other kinds of conduct with which the convention deals are already criminal offences under our law. In these cases, the Bill simply extends the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts to cover offences committed outside the United Kingdom.

It is unlikely that many cases of offences against UN personnel will come before our courts. But we must ensure that legislation is in place in order to meet any such eventuality. Until now, no legal instrument has fully protected UN peacekeeping personnel. I think we can agree that it is time for that to be changed.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who tempts me to go down the path of the War Crimes Bill, to which I was rather opposed. However, I shall not do so tonight.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his remarks. No doubt my colleague will write to him, as I do not have the answer to his question. I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.