Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-06-28
Topic: Defense
James Donnelly Touhig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara are probing. We seek a better understanding of how the legislation will operate. We hope that the Minister will enlighten us when she replies. Also listed in this group is the proposal that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill, which we oppose. My noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara will speak to that Amendment 5 would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that military guidance is updated to reflect the responsibilities that Clause 5 places on commanding officers and their superiors. We argue that this is best done by inclusion in the Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict. That way there would be no ambiguity about the duties and responsibilities of commanding officers. More than that, it would also help to ensure that other ranks are aware of what is required of their commanders In 2004, the Chiefs of Defence Staff and the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Defence, in publishing the Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, said: "Law, both domestic and international, plays an increasingly important part in Defence activities" They said it must be clear therefore that: "When undertaking operations, Commanders must take into account a broad and increasingly complex body of operational law" They went on to say: "The Law of Armed Conflict is a part of that wider body of applicable law, but it merits a manual in its own right because of its great importance to all those involved in the use of force and in wider military activities" For that reason, we believe that the objective set out in Amendment 5 is correct Amendment 6 places a further duty on the Secretary of State for Defence each year to lay before Parliament, "a list of all ranking military commanders who are responsible for a section 3 offence committed by forces under the commander’s effective command" This is at the very heart of the transparency we should expect if we are truly serious about protecting cultural property from theft or destruction. As I said, these two amendments are probing by nature, so the Minister will have the opportunity to explain in more detail how the Government see this part of the Bill working in practice Amendment 7 deals with the somewhat vexed question of the jurisdiction over our embedded forces. The Secretary of State for Defence has already said in a Statement that the Government will not be advising Parliament when our forces, embedded in the forces and under the command of a foreign power, enter into conflict. We on this side have raised this matter quite a few times in recent months, fearing that the use of this doctrine, which the Defence Secretary promulgated in April this year, is becoming the rule rather than the exception. Of course, we recognise—and I have stated in the past—that there will be occasions when, for reasons of national security and the safe operating of our forces, it would not be desirable to make a Statement in Parliament or seek parliamentary consent beforehand. However, we on these Benches are not alone in worrying about the more extensive use of embedded forces. The House will consider the Armed Forces Deployment (Royal Prerogative) Bill on 8 July. Such is the concern felt by others that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, on the Liberal Democrat Benches has been motivated to introduce that Bill, which will regulate how the Government can commit embedded forces and will require Parliament to be informed. Because of our concern, we have been motivated to table Amendment 7, which will make it clear that, "a person subject to UK service jurisdiction serving under the military command of the armed forces of another country", will be as liable for their actions under this Bill as those listed in Clause 3(4)(a) and (b) Our Amendment 8 would ensure that this legislation applies equally to, "private military contractors and individuals within private military contractors", as it does to British service personnel. All too often in recent years we have seen a real growth in the number of private military contractors operating in post-conflict situations such as Iraq, and it is right, in our view, that they be subject to this legislation Finally, Amendment 9 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to publish a report annually on how the Government have, "introduced into military regulations the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention", as well as detailing what steps they have taken to ensure that the Armed Forces have adopted the spirit of the convention to protect cultural property. Article 7 of the convention details the "military measures" that states taking part in a conflict should adopt. In addition, it details how the participating states must commit to establishing in peacetime, "services or specialist personnel whose purpose will be to secure respect for cultural property and to co-operate with the civilian authorities responsible for safeguarding it" Adopting this amendment would bring absolute clarity to the military measure requirements in the convention. This would ensure the clearest understanding of the duties placed on the military for protecting cultural property. I beg to move.