| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Sudan
2.55 pm
Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What steps they are taking to bring to justice those responsible for the killing of seven United Nations-African Union peacekeepers in Sudan on 8 July, and to identify the role of President al-Bashir and others in the violence.
Lord Bach: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 9 July called the attack,
and has reiterated the United Nations Security Council’s call for those responsible to be brought to justice. We are today working to agree a UN Security Council statement condemning the attack. The UN and the African Union have begun a preliminary fact-finding investigation to be followed by an official investigation, which we support.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, if this is not genocide, what is? That is the question I asked in your Lordships' House four years ago after visiting Darfur and taking evidence there. Then, 50,000 people were dead; the figure is now some 300,000. Should we not commend the bravery of yesterday’s decision by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, mandated by the Security Council, to ask the court to consider against Omar al-Bashir: three counts of genocide for killing members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups; five counts of crimes against humanity for murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape; and two counts of war crimes for attacks on the civilian populations of Darfur? Should we not also consider carefully Mr Moreno-Ocampo’s words:
“The genocide is ongoing ... Seventy year-old women, six year-old girls are raped ... I do not have the luxury to look away”.
Is this not a timely warning to tyrannical leaders from Zimbabwe to Burma that prosecutions must follow where evidence leads; that truth may be difficult, but that makes it no less true; that in the long term, there can be no peace without justice; and that the international community will not tolerate a culture of impunity?
15 July 2008 : Column 1098
Lord Bach: My Lords, I commend the noble Lord for his passion on this matter. The House will agree with him that terrible things have occurred and are occurring. As he said, the ICC prosecutor yesterday announced his application to the ICC judges for an arrest warrant against the President. The prosecutor is completely independent and the court has its own procedures. We therefore believe it would be inappropriate and premature to speculate or to comment on the outcome of the deliberations of the court, but we have a long-standing position of support for the work and purposes of the ICC, and that remains the case. We also have a long-standing position of calling on the Government of Sudan to co-operate with the ICC over the two existing indictments. That remains the case, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated the points I have just made to the Sudanese President himself during his visit to Khartoum last Wednesday.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that al-Bashir has a period of about three months’ grace while the ICC considers whether to prefer an indictment on these charges, and that if in the meanwhile he facilitates the work of UNAMID, causes the Janjaweed to be stopped in its tracks and facilitates the arrest and prosecution of war criminals, the court would have the power to suspend the indictment for a while?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is clear that now that the prosecutor has asked for a warrant the court will take some time to make up its mind about whether it is a proper request. That is an important time for the President of Sudan and for the United Nations.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister have an estimate of whether UN personnel, who have been temporarily withdrawn from al-Fashir and other places in the Darfur region, are in any increased danger as a result of the dialogue going on? It may be too early to speculate on the outcome of the panel of judges of the ICC and what they decide, but is it correct to say that the Security Council would have power to delay any implementation of a decision for one year? Has that aspect also been considered?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as to the noble Lord’s last question, he is quite right: there is a power under Article 16 of the Rome statute for the Security Council to defer an investigation. I do not know for what length of time—I thought that it was a shorter period than 12 months; obviously I can find out—but it has that power.
Commentators everywhere are discussing the consequences of the prosecutor's action yesterday, particularly for United Nations and African Union soldiers and peacekeepers and for those many NGOs that are there in a humanitarian capacity, in the next few weeks. It would be foolish of me to comment further on that.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in addition to the alleged genocide and war crimes for which President al-Bashir may be indicted by the ICC, during the previous war against the south, in which 2 million died and 4 million were displaced, many crimes against humanity—war crimes—were committed
15 July 2008 : Column 1099
Lord Bach: My Lords, again, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, whom I know has visited those terror fields herself, but I must repeat what I said before. This is now a matter for the ICC and for its judges. The arrest warrant has been issued and it is now for the three judges to make up their minds what they should do with it. It would be inappropriate for any Government to say anything about the independent court, which must reach its own decision.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the many people working for NGOs in Khartoum and all over Sudan. Can we be reassured that the British Government, with their partners in the international community, are making plans if necessary to help to remove those people from Sudan, given the rather threatening remarks that the Sudanese Government have made about violence towards foreign personnel if the indictment is confirmed?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the first duty of those responsible for NGO employees is to ensure that their safety is, as best as can be, guaranteed, but the British Government are very aware of the delicate situation that now arises in Sudan. The noble Lord can be sure that we are taking all the necessary steps.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: My Lords, will the Minister encourage the Government to meet some of the Sudanese bishops who are at present in this country for the Lambeth Conference?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I certainly will.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that it is very important that it be made clear that this International Criminal Court administers justice in an even-handed way? The extension of responsibility to Sudan by the Security Council some years ago applies to the insurgents, just as it applies to the Government. If the insurgents commit crimes against humanity or grave breaches of international humanitarian law, they too will be pursued by the court, as was the case in the former Yugoslavia, where some members of all three groups were eventually brought before the court. It is rather important that that be so. It should not be thought that the court is a mechanism for pursuing just the Government.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. He will know that an international commission of inquiry concluded in January three years ago that the Government of Sudan had not pursued a policy of genocide, but highlighted grave concerns about crimes committed by all sides in Darfur. The United Kingdom was one of the countries that took the matter to the Security Council. The consequence
15 July 2008 : Column 1100
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, last week we welcomed the announcement that there will be no more forcible removals of failed Darfuri asylum seekers to the Sudan. Will the Government now assure us that this will not be recommenced during the Recess and that no asylum seekers will be returned to an already desperate situation?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understood it, we were talking last week about Zimbabwe. The noble Lord asked me about Sudan. I cannot give the guarantee that he seeks for the Recess, but I will write to him with an answer.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the—to some of us—surprising power of delay by the Security Council. Is that power subject to veto, or is it procured by majority?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, a proposal is put forward and can be vetoed by one of the five permanent members.
Business
3.06 pm
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the House has a very full day before it. We will now have the Committee stage of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill, followed immediately by formal Report and Third Reading. The House will then consider the Second Reading of the Planning Bill, on which 37 Peers have indicated a desire to speak. Neither piece of business is strictly time-limited, so precise calculations are impossible. However, if Back-Bench speeches on Second Reading are limited to seven minutes, it should be possible for that stage to be completed tonight. If the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill takes longer than anticipated, it may be necessary to adjourn the Planning Bill’s Second Reading and to complete it tomorrow. I will, of course, keep the House informed as business progresses.
Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill
3.07 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I do not intend to oppose the Committee stage of the Bill, or to object to its remaining stages being taken today. I have intervened at this juncture because a significant and lengthy amendment was tabled last night by the Government.
15 July 2008 : Column 1101
I am aware that this is emergency legislation. We, for our part, have accepted the need for speed, although we believe that, even in the context of emergency legislation, the time allowed for parliamentary scrutiny in this case has been too truncated, especially in the context of a measure that goes to the heart of the principle of a fair trial and the liberty of the individual.
I also recognise that, within the exacting timetable that the Government have set, they have presented us with a number of welcome opportunities to discuss the Bill. It was, therefore, all the more bewildering to be taken by surprise this morning. When I asked for an emergency meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he and his team responded with characteristic and commendable promptitude. Nevertheless, I have had no chance to discuss the matter properly with my colleagues in another place, let alone formulate a considered manuscript amendment.
This state of affairs further undermines the effectiveness of scrutiny, which is already restricted by the severe curtailment of normal Bill procedures in your Lordships’ House. Such conduct is constitutionally counterproductive. It simply lends support to those who take the view that emergency legislative procedures are little or no more than government by decree.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in his protest at the late setting down of these amendments. Amendment No. 4A states:
It is crucial to our debates today to know whether the Government intend to make rules of court, in which case many of our objections might be properly addressed at that stage. If we are being presented with something just to paper over the cracks, as opposed to a positive commitment from the Government to make rules of court covering this extremely difficult area of procedural criminal law, it is a disgrace to Parliament that this procedure is adopted.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the Front Bench has said that we will proceed straight away to the Report and Third Reading stages. What will happen if anyone wants to put down amendments for Report stage or later?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for giving me this opportunity to apologise unreservedly to the House for the late tabling of two government amendments last night. I do so apologise. We have attempted at all stages of this Bill to work as closely as we can with both Opposition Front Benches. I want to place on record my appreciation of the co-operation that we have had from the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and their Front Bench colleagues in the other place.
The House will understand from the Statement made to your Lordships and from our Second Reading debate that we have had to draft this Bill at a very
15 July 2008 : Column 1102
The noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General will set out the need for these amendments when we reach the relevant stage in our proceedings in Committee. The Bill should be seen as an interim measure until the next Session. Last Tuesday we made an undertaking to the Commons that further legislation would be introduced in the next Session. The Law Reform, Victims and Witnesses Bill will subsume the contents of this Bill and will enable full parliamentary scrutiny.
Again, I apologise to the House for what has happened. I beg your Lordships’ tolerance on the understanding that we will have a full opportunity in the next Session to debate these matters again. We intend to invite the Criminal Rules Committee to make rules of court. Of course, it will be up to it to make its own decision.
I should say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that these matters have been discussed in the usual channels, but of course it is open to any noble Lord to move an amendment at any stage in the Bill’s proceedings.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is this not a very sorry tale? It has one benefit in that it demonstrates how wise we were in this House to pass this legislation over two days when another place had to rush it through in a matter of hours. Can the Minister explain why these amendments were tabled so late last night, why my noble friend Lord Kingsland was not given copies of them, and when the Government were made aware that amendments would be required? I do not know if the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General would be the right person to offer that advice. Further, when were Ministers first advised that amendments would be required, and could this not easily have been done before the weekend?
3.15 pm
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his comments. I accept that having a gap between Second Reading and the remaining stages of this Bill has proved to be a wise decision. As he will know, it followed discussions in the usual channels. I cannot tell him the exact moment when Ministers knew of the issue, but I have told the House that, as work had to be done rapidly, notification for the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, was left until very late. I can only apologise for that. We should have done better and I wish we had, but I hope that the House will be tolerant on the basis that in a few months’ time we will have an opportunity to come back to the clauses that, it is hoped, will be enacted today. The new Bill will allow for further thorough scrutiny, as your Lordships’ House is wont to do.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I can well understand how difficult it would be to define the precise moment
15 July 2008 : Column 1103
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give an exact audit trail for when a particular instruction was given. As a senior Minister for many years, the noble Lord has great experience of the business of government, and what I can tell him is that the drafting of the Bill took place over a short period, in the light of the judgment by your Lordships’ House; we had to move very rapidly. However, we held a series of meetings with noble Lords and the Front Bench representatives of both major parties in this House and the other place.
When officials identified that there was the possibility of problems in the original drafting, it was their responsibility to draw them to the attention of Ministers, and in turn Ministers had to take responsibility for the decision to bring forward government amendments. That has happened. Of course I am happy to look into the timing, but I do not have the details with me today. I reiterate my apology to the House and my determination to ensure that we will have every opportunity to discuss these matters in full during the next Session.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, one recognises that there are occasions over the years when emergency legislation is required, and that it can cause problems. While the Minister offers the encouragement that new proposals will be brought forward in a couple of months’ time, is not the reality that the law of the land will be determined by the passage of this legislation today? It will become the law, probably for the coming year. This is not quite as large a concession or amelioration of the situation as he suggests.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |