---

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1098—continued

Mr. Bradshaw: I shall certainly pass on that further request from my hon. Friend for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I would point out that in the statement this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday and in Defence questions on Monday, a great deal was said and many questions were asked about a post-Saddam Iraq. It is important in that context that we do not get ahead of ourselves. Our armed forces are still involved in a dangerous military conflict, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1099

State for Defence said earlier, people should not assume is about to come to an end. Perhaps the moment of greatest danger is still ahead of us. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity in the House to debate the future of Iraq, which I hope my hon. Friend agrees will be much rosier when Saddam has gone.

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1100

Point of Order

2.7 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for a Minister inadvertently, no doubt, to mislead the House by not completing a quotation? In business questions, the acting Leader of the House told us in a quotation that the Electoral Commission

"knows of no reason in law why a budget should not be presented during an election campaign".

The quote continues:

"although by well-established convention significant government announcements are avoided in the 'purdah' period running up to general elections. April 9th is within the formal period of campaign to elections to the Scottish Parliament . . . and it seems right that announcements relevant to those nations should be similarly avoided. As a general principle, the Commission would wish to see as level a playing field as our political system will allow and for that reason"

does not like the Government to

"use its position during an election campaign in a way which might be perceived as seeking electoral advantage."

The acting Leader of the House is a fair-minded man. He has the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to make it clear that he was not attempting to mislead the House as to the views of the Electoral Commission.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman's comments are none the less on the record.

BILL PRESENTED

Road and Street Works (Notice and Compensation)

Keith Vaz presented a Bill to require highway authorities, street authorities and statutory undertakers to give notice to residents and businesses of road and street works; to provide for compensation if a notice is not issued; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 87].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]

Question agreed to.

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1101

Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]

2.10 pm

Ross Cranston (Dudley, North): In this Adjournment debate, I wish to address three matters: first, the war in Iraq; secondly, a constituency interest which, in fact, has a wider national application; and thirdly, I want to say something about Parliament.

I want to say something about the laws of war or, as they are correctly called, the rules of humanitarian law. Humanitarian law applies to the conduct of war, and is different from the question whether a state may lawfully use armed force. I said in the House well before the conflict started that what we are doing in Iraq is perfectly lawful. However, the separate body of humanitarian law attempts to limit the effects of armed conflict, mainly by restricting the means and methods of warfare. It is contained in customary international law, and now most notably the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the additional protocols of 1977. Humanitarian law demands that the means and methods of warfare must discriminate between those taking part in the fighting and military objects on the one hand and civilians and civilian, cultural, religious, medical and similar objects on the other. There is also a prohibition on means and methods of warfare that cause severe or long-term damage to the environment. In addition, certain weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons and anti-personnel mines, are banned.

States have an obligation to ensure that their armed forces and citizens comply with the rules of humanitarian law, and must have a system to punish breaches of those rules. This country has created offences in our domestic law for breaches of the Geneva conventions and the protocols. My experience as a Law Officer during the Kosovo conflict was that we are scrupulous in complying with the rules of humanitarian law. That does not mean that mistakes do not occur, but I was impressed by how mightily our armed forces attempt to comply with their obligations under the Geneva conventions. We may discount media reports of the behaviour of some Iraqi combatants, but it is clear that there is no moral equivalence between the means and methods of the British armed forces and certain elements in the Iraqi forces.

As for combatants, the Geneva conventions require, first, that they be members of a state's armed forces. Secondly there is a principle of distinction—not only must combatants comply with the laws of war, as I have outlined, but they must distinguish themselves from civilians, not least by carrying their weapons openly. If combatants fail to comply with those requirements, they run the risk of losing protections accorded to prisoners of war by the conventions. At a basic level, those conventions demand respect for the lives and physical and mental integrity of POWs, but there are other advantages such as registration and visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross. In the last few days, the status of the Fedayeen militia has been at issue. The Ministry of Defence has said that there is no case for treating those paramilitary forces as unlawful combatants, whether or not they are wearing military uniforms. That is right—they are identifiable, are in a

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1102

war zone, carry their weapons openly and hence are entitled to POW status. Even unlawful combatants must not be treated inhumanely—I shall discuss that issue in relation to the detentions at Guantanamo bay.

In my view, British troops are governed by the European convention on human rights. The United States is a signatory to the international convention on civil and political rights, so its troops are bound by similar standards. Both conventions include standards such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, and the right to liberty or, to put it another way, the right not to be unlawfully detained. That last right is at issue in Guantanamo bay. I have raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary by letter and in parliamentary questions. One of the detainees, Shafiq Rasul, lives just outside my constituency in Tipton, and his family is well known in Dudley. The United States uses various legal arguments to justify the detention Shafiq and others. First, it invokes the principle of distinction, which I have already mentioned. The argument is that the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters were unlawful combatants because they were not members of the armed forces of a state. That is certainly the case with al-Qaeda, which is terrorist organisation, but the argument has less force in the case of the Taliban. The United States, however, argues that those combatants are not entitled to protections for POWs in the Geneva conventions.

Secondly, as foreign nationals not on US sovereign territory, those detainees do not enjoy the ordinary constitutional protections of Americans. That contention has been upheld by the federal United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That decision is regrettable because it turns on an arcane point of property law—the 1903 lease of lands agreement between the US and Cuba established that Cuba had de jure sovereignty over Guantanamo bay. The reality is that Shafiq and other Britons are being held indefinitely. Our Court of Appeal considered the matter late last year in the Abassi case and said that the detainees are being held

"in apparent contravention of fundamental principles recognised by both English and American jurisdictions and by international law".

What is objectionable, as the Court of Appeal, said, is that Shafiq, Abassi and others are without any opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention before the courts.

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the de jure jurisdiction of Cuba under the 1903 lease. Is he aware of what that lease says to give individuals rights that they have otherwise been denied?

Ross Cranston: The wording of the lease is such that Cuba has de jure sovereignty. Whatever the de facto position, the court held that, under the lease, Cuba still had de jure sovereignty. Of course, that does not accord with the realities of the situation, as the United States obviously has control of that base.

Once the war in Iraq is over, we would be perfectly entitled to press the United States to act in accordance with the rule of law in relation to Britons who are

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1103

detained at Guantanamo bay. If they are guilty of offences, they must be punished but, by the same token, they must have the right to be accorded a hearing before a court or tribunal.

I now turn to a constituency interest. These are difficult times for manufacturing. There is a long-term structural decline, added to which there is a cyclical slowdown because of the world economic recession. There is a significant effect on jobs, and about 10,000 jobs a month are being lost in manufacturing. It still accounts for 20 per cent. of gross domestic product, and in my area of the black country and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), it accounts for 30 per cent. of GDP. A higher proportion of people are employed in manufacturing in our region than is the case nationally.

What do we have to do to move from low value added production to a more highly competitive economy, where good design, high technology and innovation will give us a competitive edge? What can Government do? The Government have established the Manufacturing Advisory Service. The figures issued in the past couple of days demonstrate that that is proving to be a popular service. It is responding to what manufacturers want. There have been about 8,500 inquiries, and 1,000 of those have led to further consultancies.

---