Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in considering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will the Government take into account the views expressed by Sir Alan Budd on his appointment by the Home Secretary to look into that particular affair? His comments are very interesting.
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 544
 

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we take very careful account of comments and views expressed, particularly from respected persons such as Sir Alan Budd. No doubt they will form an important part of our response.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the committee's finding that the ability of local councillors to represent their constituents' interests in planning matters has been "unnecessarily curtailed"? Will the Government act on the recommendation to reform the code of conduct?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be premature of me to make a big comment on that, but—certainly from my own experience—I am rather drawn to agree with the noble Baroness's first set of observations. It will be part of an important debate and perhaps needs to be looked at again.

Iraq: Coalition Military Forces

2.56 p.m.

Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the coalition is committed to retaining a military presence in Iraq while the Iraqi Government request it and as Iraqi security forces develop both capacity and capability to assume the security of their country.

We announced on 27 January that the UK would replace the Dutch forces when they withdraw. Poland, the framework nation in Multinational Division (Centre South), has responsibility for planning for adjustments in Ukrainian and Polish force levels. We are consulting our partners and the Iraqi Government to determine how best to support the Iraqi security forces in providing security.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, 1,400 Dutch troops are leaving. Is the Minister really satisfied that the 600 British troops required to backfill are enough, and that the important commitment to the training of the Iraqi security forces continues unaffected?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, we are sure that the 600 troops are adequate; a very careful military examination has gone on to ensure that that is so. Of those that we are sending to Iraq for that purpose, the 220 that we are sending to go with the British troops who will move to that part of South-East Division are key enablers to ensure that we can do the job properly. Of those 220, 70 will leave in pretty short order. We would not have agreed to do that unless those figures were right.
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 545
 

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, considering the increase in British forces in Iraq, how many reservists are being called upon to act in Iraq? Future Use of the UK's Reserve Forces, which was published today, says that the role of the reserves will be:

It also says:

Is that a sustainable use of the Reserve Forces in the near future?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that it is. Indeed, we have discussed on many occasions in this House the new role that the reserves now play. It is a crucial role in Iraq and other centres of operation. The announcement of the mobilisation of a further tranche of approximately 900 reservists to support continuing operations from May to June next year was made on 14 December, as the noble Lord will know. Around 9,000 reserves have served with great distinction in Iraq since conflict in 2003.

Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the level of commitment in Iraq will not be maintained by means of reducing our commitment in Afghanistan?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I can assure the noble Lord of that very important point. We are absolutely committed to Afghanistan, as we are to Iraq, and to seeing through what has started. The noble Lord need not concern himself on that count.

Lord Garden: My Lords, will the Minister take us through the Statement of 27 January a little more? Various figures have been mentioned. There will be 1,400 Dutch forces going and a net change of 150 from the UK. Does that mean that the security situation has improved enormously or that one British serviceman can do the work of 10 Dutchmen?

Lord Bach: My Lords, it does not mean the latter. We are very grateful for what the Dutch have done in that part of the South-East Division. As we speak, the province from where the Dutch will withdraw in March is much quieter than other parts of the South-East Division. A very significant inquiry was undertaken to work out what numbers were needed to take their place. As I have outlined today and as was outlined in the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in January, those numbers remain the proper figures.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to have a wide spread of coalition forces in Iraq to lend greater weight to the international effort? We have mentioned three countries. What other countries are making significant contributions to the operation in Iraq?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for that question. There are still 27 states
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 546
 
in the multinational force, which will be so when the Dutch and the Portuguese withdraw. As regards the other countries: MND South-East, our area, includes Italy, Japan, Romania and Denmark. Many other countries have contributed and continue to contribute to the coalition.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my peripheral interest. For how many years have we been operating outside the defence planning assumptions?

Lord Bach: My Lords, none.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, of the coalition troops that are not American, what proportion are British?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not sure that I am up to the mathematical formula required for that answer. The overall coalition forces are currently around 160,000. The United States have approximately 135,000 forces. As of February 2005, we have just over 8,000. So one can assume that there are about 17,000, roughly speaking, who are neither US nor UK forces.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, there will be a repeated Statement later, entitled Controlling Our Borders—a five-year asylum strategy. It will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Scotland. We shall take the Statement, with agreement, immediately following completion of Report stage of the International Organisations Bill.

International Organisations Bill [HL]

3.3 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Commonwealth Secretariat]:

Baroness Falkner of Margravine moved Amendment No. 1:

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 seeks to revert to the status quo ante in terms of the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966 and, thus, to leave the situation as it currently stands. Without going over the many concerns raised at Second Reading and in Committee, I will distil concerns to one or two issues only. These relate to human rights issues and access to justice relating to staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has considered the Bill. I am a member of the JCHR. I should like to put on record that I did not participate in the committee's discussion as I feared that there might be a conflict of interest as I had formerly been a member of the Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Association. I therefore had no part to play in the JCHR scrutiny function.
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 547
 

Nevertheless, the JCHR report makes two important points, which have not been satisfactorily dealt with in the response of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Paragraph 3.10 of the interim report states:

The JCHR went on to ask two questions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The first question that it put to the Minister concerned whether each of the immunities conferred by the Bill was required by international law. Bill Rammell, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in his response to the committee, tells us that,

I do not believe that a general belief, in principle, is adequate to protect human rights in every particular case.

We are told repeatedly by the Government that good governance does not follow an approach where one size fits all. If one were to follow the logic of that approach, it would be obvious that different measures must be taken to deal with different problems.

The problem here is that an employee of the Commonwealth Secretariat contested a suit in the UK High Court, which held that United Kingdom courts did, indeed, have jurisdiction. So one court case has led to the Government seeking to extend a blanket immunity on the Commonwealth Secretariat.

The question put by the JCHR was whether those immunities were required, not whether they were preferable in principle. I do not believe that that question has been answered adequately in the case of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

The second question posed by the JCHR was:

That question goes to the very heart of the matter as regards human rights. Article 6 rights cover the right to a fair trial. It states that,

As the Government point out, it is correct that in Waite and Kennedy v Germany, the European Court of Human Rights held that the relevant German courts were indeed correct to grant immunity to the European Space Agency. But in making that judgment, the European Court noted two important caveats where such immunity applies.
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 548
 

It recalled that the convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory rights, but rights that are practical and effective. That, it found, to be particularly true for the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial.

Secondly, for the court, a material factor in determining whether granting ESA immunity from German jurisdiction is permissible under the convention is whether the applicants had available to them reasonable alternative means to protect effectively their rights under the convention.

In this landmark ruling, the test was proportionality and adequate alternative remedy. Both these tests would come under threat in the particular case of the Commonwealth Secretariat and CSAT if Clause 1 is in fact omitted.

It is important to look at the rights and protection available to CSAT applicants within the existing dispute resolution mechanism; that is, CSAT. Are there sufficient safeguards under the CSAT process? For example, under the existing CSAT system no protection is available in the event that a decision of CSAT gives rise to a question of error of law. The issues of independence and impartiality are critical to the operation of CSAT, and it is viewed that the removal of the limited but fundamental protection which is currently available to litigants—in other words, to members of staff in the secretariat—through extremely limited access to UK courts would appear to be reasonable and proportionate. Doing away with those rights to access UK courts in very stringent circumstances would, I argue, be disproportionate and would have a serious impact on rights of appeal by staff.

The granting of full immunities to the Commonwealth Secretariat would therefore have serious implications for anyone who enters into a written contract with the organisation. The tribunal, composed as it may be of senior judges, should not become the sole arbiter of justice without any other remedy available if Article 6 rights are to be practical and effective, in line with the court's ruling.

Finally, I shall deal with the impact of the Bill. It will affect not only UK nationals, who have become the subject of several questions as regards numbers; that is, how many are employed. The number of UK nationals is important, but it is the diminution of rights that will affect not only UK nationals, but also staff from a further 52 Commonwealth countries who should all be entitled to the protection of their human rights. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page