HL Deb 10 April 2001 vol 624 cc1060-4

11.16 a.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, that junior ranks acting on orders believed to be proper are liable to be impleaded to stand trial for war crimes; and, if so, whether in the exercise of the treaty-making power of the Crown, a declaration (under Article 124) excluding application of Article 8 to the Armed Forces should be made on ratification of the International Criminal Court statute.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)

My Lords, the United Kingdom does not intend to make a declaration under Article 124 of the Rome Statute. This question was debated by the House during the Report stage of the passage of the International Criminal Court Bill, and the will of the House was not to make such a declaration.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. As Article 8 incorporates convention provisions for war crimes on which servicemen can be tried in our courts and the ICC, will the Government give an undertaking to entertain further consultations and representations from the Armed Forces before declining—as apparently they now propose to do—to exercise the discretion to opt out? Are not these provisions—which have not been revised for more than 50 years and which are apt to apply to armed operations such as peacekeeping, whether or not under the aegis of NATO or the United Nations—ripe for redefinition and review?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, it is not right that these offences should be redefined. The noble Lord will know that the Rome Statute, to which we agreed, enumerates in Article 8 war crimes which, as the noble Lord rightly said, have been part of international law for some considerable time. These issues were debated in full, both in Committee and on Report, during the Bill's passage through this House. There has been the fullest consultation with the Ministry of Defence. My clearest instructions are that it is more than content that the current position protects our Armed Forces.

At the moment, the UK troops operating in Bosnia and Kosovo are already within the jurisdiction of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. They are currently subject to these rules but that has not impeded their legitimate operations. Without the benefit of the complementarity produced by the ICC giving primacy to this jurisdiction, our courts are not in the position that they will be once the ICC Bill becomes law.

Lord Shore of Stepney

My Lords, my noble friend will remember that many anxieties were expressed at Third Reading about some of the provisions in the convention and in the Bill. Worries have been articulated in very serious places, as it were, in the Armed Forces since. Has any progress been made in the use of the ability to make declarations and reservations under Article 50, which was referred to by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in replying to the debate? Progress in that regard might go some way to alleviating such concerns.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, the Government listened with great care to the concerns expressed. We believe that the Bill addresses those concerns forcefully, cogently and comprehensively. The Bill is now in the process of completing its passage through the other place. The noble Lord is right to say that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General indicated that additional matters would be met later. But that would not be an appropriate way in which to express our adherence to Article 8.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Article 8 is very much at the heart of the International Criminal Court legislation and that any lead by the United Kingdom to reduce its application to the Armed Forces would deeply weaken the Bill in its application to other countries where the behaviour of the armed forces is perhaps less exemplary? At a time when, for example, rape has been used as a deliberate weapon of war, it is surely appropriate that the International Criminal Court should be upheld, and in particular that Article 8 should be upheld.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness. She is right. Our Armed Forces have a very proud and long history of proper adherence to international law and practice. We need feel no shadow of shame for them. We have a proud tradition. We have complied with international conventions. It is right that we should seek to form an example now and comply with a commitment that we have made, validly, to the international community.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government are absolutely confident that 100 different countries, let us say, which will exclude the United States but may Include Zimbabwe and Iran, will, on a system of one country one vote, select 18 judges of adequate competence and impartiality? The Minister referred to proceedings in another place. Has she noted the opinion of Mr Martin Bell—who is presumably thoroughly impartial in this matter and has observed atrocities at first hand—that the system of Yugoslav war tribunals has defects, that it has not worked impartially and that it has resulted in some wrongful convictions?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, we do not accept that assessment. Mr Bell is entitled to his view and it is right that he should express it, but we do not agree with him. We have a clear intention to be party to the discussions about the appointment of judges. That is one of the reasons why we wish to be within the first 60 countries to give effect to the statute. That will give us an opportunity to make our voice heard and to have British judges at the court. That is a safeguard that we should seek for our armed servicemen and women who go into battle on occasion with great fortitude on our behalf.

Viscount Slim

My Lords, coming down to the practical application of the legislation at the fighting level, is the Minister aware that there is still disquiet among field commanders? We really should do everything possible to retain the necessary military ethos and culture and not destroy command and control in battle and within the Ministry of Defence. Is the Minister aware that the message I am receiving regarding the disquiet among field commanders is different from the platitudes given out by the Ministry of Defence?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I hear what the noble Viscount says. Of course I agree with him that command and control and the retention of command and control is of importance. I can reassure the noble Viscount that the rules that have applied to the way in which our commanders have carried out their duties in the past will not be materially changed by our adherence to, compliance with, and ratification of the ICC. The noble Viscount will know from his long and distinguished history that our Armed Forces are already subject to international conventions. They are bound by them and they have honoured them. The noble Viscount will know that we need have no moment of shame for the way in which our Armed Forces will discharge their duty. They will do it properly, and with courage.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, will the Minister allow that there is no question of being ashamed of our Armed Forces? There is no criticism of our Armed Forces. Will she accept that that is not the gist of the Question? Nor, indeed, is rape as a weapon of war. Will the Minister accept that that, too, is wholly wide of the Question? What is relevant to the Question is the view of the field commanders as expressed in the Sunday Telegraph—

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, they were quoted in the Sunday Telegraph—and there is no reason for any great expression of mirth or wonder. There is no question of laughing this off. Will the Minister accept the concern that has been expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, that these matters ought to be addressed?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, as I said, these matters have been addressed. I entirely accept that there has been selective reporting of the evidence given by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce. But it is important to remember that the Chief of the Defence Staff was very clear. He said, for instance: I am as confident as I can be at the moment that we are taking what actions we need to in the light of legislative Bills coming forward to have exemptions where appropriate. Three or four years ago we were not well set up"— the noble Lord will know that that was under a different administration. He went on to say: There is nothing in the pipeline that I am aware of at the moment which gives me cause for concern". He was also asked directly about the ICC Bill.

I should like to put this matter to rest. The field commanders may have expressed some concerns. Those concerns, we respectfully suggest, have been dealt with comprehensively. It is quite wrong to try to fan a comment taken out of context into something which causes difficulty. It does not.

The Earl of Northesk

My Lords, to pursue the matter a little more widely, can the Minister explain why the Government seem so reluctant to accept that this issue will have—some argue that it is already having—an adverse effect on recruitment, discipline and morale among our Armed Forces?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I know that many would prefer us to deal not with facts but with speculation and rumour. The facts do not bear out the noble Earl's comment. We are having increasing success in recruitment. We hope that adherence to proper rules of international law will enhance the opportunity to attract those of the right mind.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the effective functioning of the International Criminal Court is infinitely more likely to protect British subjects and British forces than it is to threaten them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble and learned friend. It is right that we shall have, once the Bill comes into force, the opportunity for issues to be dealt with by our courts and our judges. That is the best form of security that our armed servicemen and women could possibly have.