House of Lords
Monday, 3rd February 1997.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers--Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
War Crimes Trials
Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the Attorney-General, having consented to the institution of proceedings under Section 1(3) of the War Crimes Act 1991, will consider, before committal for trial, fitness to plead and delay relevant to abuse of process, with a view to exercising his discretion to enter a nolle prosequi.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the power to direct the entry of a nolle prosequi only relates to cases proceeding on indictment, that is, already committed for trial. I understand that the Attorney-General would expect to take account of any available medical evidence when deciding whether to consent to the bringing of proceedings under the War Crimes Act 1991 and in the Serafinowicz case did offer the defendant an opportunity to submit any such evidence, and kept this aspect together with the evidence generally under close review.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. Does he agree that these preliminary objections for trial will inevitably be taken in all these cases and that Mr. Attorney, when he gives his consent to the institution of proceedings, has absolutely no means of knowing the substance of the objections? If so, before protracted committal proceedings, would it be appropriate for there to be some form of ex officio appraisal of consent to prosecute in the light of available evidence, at all events in such cases where the accused is about 85 and suffering from advanced Alzheimer's?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Attorney- General takes account of all the material available to him at the stage when he agrees to consent for prosecution in these cases. In the particular case to which reference was made, the Attorney-General had regard to all the evidence and information available at the time when he granted his consent. At the time the Attorney caused an inquiry to be made of those representing the defendant whether there was any medical bar to a prosecution and in particular whether the defendant wished to make any representations to the Law Officers concerning his health, mental or physical. No representations were forthcoming.
So far as concerns the other matters preliminary to trial, they were argued before the judge and the judge agreed that the case should go forward to trial, first, of course, on the question of the accused's fitness to plead.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry which led
to the War Crimes Act made the key finding in paragraphs 9.10 and 9.50 that there were three cases with a realistic prospect of a conviction? Is he further aware that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wrote to me on 11th March 1994 to say that one of those cases had been abandoned because of a lack of evidence and a second case had been abandoned because the person had died? As The Times of 18th January reported that the Serafinowicz case was the third of those cases, has not the underpinning of the Hetherington-Chalmers Report now collapsed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Hetherington-Chalmers Report was based on information available at the time it was made and matters move on. The Act under which these prosecutions were taken was the basis on which the Attorney-General acted in this particular case.
Landmines: Manufacture and Export
2.41 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their policy on the manufacture and export of landmines.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Government's moratorium prohibits the export of all anti-personnel landmines to all countries. There are no such restrictions on manufacture but, as far as we are aware, no British companies have manufactured these weapons for several years.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I very much welcome the assurance of the Minister. Will she accept that my Question was prompted by the apparent disagreement over the plea by Princess Diana for the complete abolition of anti-personnel mines? I am glad that the position has now been clarified. The initiative taken by the Government last week at the disarmament conference in Geneva was welcome. But will that impede in any way the processes which were agreed at the Ottawa Conference on this subject last year? Can the Minister also confirm that these devices will not be used by British troops, in view of the general agreement that they have no military strategic importance?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we welcome the comments made by the Princess of Wales in support of a total ban on anti-personnel mines. That is the Government's view also. I can assure him also that our tabling of a mandate in the Conference on Disarmament was done because we believe that that is the best place to achieve the goal of a total ban. We are pressing for an early start to negotiations.
The CD has a good track record in arms control and the wide membership essential for such an agreement. It is notable that Canada, the UN Secretary General and a significant number of countries have already
pronounced themselves in favour of the Conference on Disarmament considering the APL. That is a good step forward, so there is no disagreement in that regard. In relation to working towards a unilateral ban on the use of mines, it is not the British Army that caused the problem. We do not ban their use if it is for a special purpose. But any such use will be subject to ministerial consent.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that landmines, whether anti-personnel or anti-tank, are quintessentially defensive weapons? Contrary to what might have been suggested by the noble Lord, they have enormous military significance, especially in the defence of small forces against substantially larger ones. Does not the Minister agree also that it is misleading to say that the mines have no military application? Can she give the House an assurance that the high profile publicity campaigns carried out by people who do not always understand the military implications will not lead the Government into any unilateral action?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that anti-personnel mines, particularly the SMART mines--the only ones now permitted--are defensive weapons. However, if he could see, as I have seen in country after country the terrible situation that exists for ordinary youngsters and adults who have become innocent victims of landmines which were not SMART mines, he would understand why I and so many others are committed not only to demining but also to gaining a global ban. We should not seek to have unilateral bans which allow certain countries to go on using mines. They have a proper military use, but it is extremely limited. I am glad to say that the British Army, when it has to use such mines, does so for limited purposes only, and we hope that that will decrease year by year.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I recently returned from Afghanistan, where there are an estimated 10 million unexploded landmines. Can the Minister say whether there is a move to harmonise export arms controls at IGC? If so, which governments are supporting the move?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not the IGC; I believe the noble Viscount means the Conference on Disarmament.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is there a move to harmonise at IGC on arms export controls?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no such move at the moment. However, our commitment to a total global ban on the transfer, as well as the production, use and stockpiling, of anti-personnel landmines will go a long way to bring that about. The critical need is to persuade all countries to ban the production, use and transfer and to stop indiscriminate use. That is what we are working well towards.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since the Scott Report the Government's credibility on
the matter of arms exports is at a low ebb? For that reason, can the Minister once again confirm that there are no exports, direct or indirect or by transfer to third parties--third countries like the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man--or in the form of component parts?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this Question has nothing whatever to do with the Scott Report. Last week I answered the question which has just been repeated by the noble Lord and I have nothing further to add.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in light of my noble friend's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, regarding the horrors of the effects of mines, does she accept that the most humane action we can now take is urgently to lift the mines? We should concentrate our efforts on lifting known mines and convincing the military to mark and map all minefields when they are laid.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page