HL Deb 19 May 2003 vol 648 cc492-4

2.53 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether action will be taken to ensure that civilian casualties of the conflict in Iraq are compensated for injuries and loss.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, a party to an armed conflict is liable to pay compensation if it violates the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions or of Additional Protocol I thereto, if the case so demands. As the United Kingdom has conducted the conflict in accordance with these provisions, no question of compensation arises. Nevertheless, we have always been, and will remain, in the forefront of efforts to help the Iraqi people. And we have always tried to minimise the adverse effects of our military action on Iraqi civilians.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But was it not repeatedly stated that coalition forces would not target civilians and that therefore damage, injuries and death must have been caused by accident? In that case, is not the coalition responsible for the accidental damage to Iraqi civilians in view of its declared policy that Iraqi civilians would not be targeted?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that we stated that we would not target any civilian objectives, and we did not. Where civilian targets were hit, there is still a good deal of dispute about the exact circumstances. I can think of one or two incidents where it was claimed that they were accidents caused by our own coalition forces and counter-claims that the damage was caused by Iraqi return of fire. Under the Geneva Convention, the military action should always be such that does everything and takes all appropriate steps to avoid such casualties. In choosing targets, method of attack and proportional response, that was exactly what the coalition forces did. That does not render them in any way subject to compensation for damage caused.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, does the Minister remember that after the first Gulf War, the UN Compensation Commission paid out substantial sums? I think it met 2.6 million individual claims, and there are still corporate and state entity claims outstanding. Those have been so prolonged that some say they will not be settled until 2070, which is rather far ahead. For the second Gulf War, will not the same procedure be adopted and if it is, could the UN Compensation Commission be encouraged to keep separate the individual claims which it settled quite promptly from the obviously much more legalistically complicated claims from corporations and state entities?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: there are outstanding claims from the first conflict. As the noble Lord and most of your Lordships will be aware, there is no provision under the Geneva Convention for an individual to make a claim against the state. The Geneva Conventions provide for inter-state compensation, not for compensation to individuals. But I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the noble Lord says about trying to speed up the process at the UN. which takes a very long time. As your Lordships discussed last week, there is much to be done in looking at the way in which the UN operates, and this might be one area where scrutiny would be particularly appropriate.

Baroness Northover

My Lords, the reason given for this war was to uncover weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein had apparently hidden. Now the Foreign Secretary says that these weapons may never be found and that it is not significant. Therefore, the question of the legality of this war is obviously pertinent. In the light of last night's "Panorama" programme about the influence of neo-Conservatives on the US administration, does the noble Baroness feel concerned to be the junior partner in such a coalition? Can she confirm that should the US plan to take action of a similar nature of doubtful legality, the UK Government will not take any part in any attack on Iran or Syria?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I did not see all of last night's programme—I saw a little bit. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that I do not think it is my job here to answer questions on "Panorama". My job is to answer for the British Government to your Lordships' House. We went over the legality of our participation as a coalition member in a very extensive debate in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness may recall—if she does not I will remind her that the Attorney-General's advice was that the conflict in Iraq was legal under UN Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Finding the weapons of mass destruction, as the noble Baroness knows and as we have been over many times in your Lordships' House, may well take a very long time. The question of justification for our participation was under the UN resolutions. I remind the noble Baroness that all three of those UN resolutions were adopted by the UN and that the most important one, 1441, was adopted unanimously.

Lord Rea

My Lords, about two and a half years ago I met, at a conference in Spain, Dr Akram Hamoodi, who is a senior surgeon and director of the Basra teaching hospital, and formed a high opinion of him. I heard a few days ago that while he was on duty at the hospital, four of his children, aged 17, 18, 12 and 13, his mother and four other members of his family had been killed in a stray missile hit on his family home. Is this man, and many others like him, not entitled to some form of compensation?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, it is a tragic situation, but he is not legally entitled to compensation. He is entitled to our sympathy and to any help that we can give. As the noble Lord will know, we have given help in relation to some children who were hurt during the course of the conflict. I answer, as I am bound to, that within international law he is not entitled to compensation for what happened, however tragic the accident was.