Programme motion, Committee stage, 3rd reading in the Commons
- Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Chris Bryant)Labour- Quote
- As I am sure hon. Members will know, the first clause of the Bill amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which itself incorporated the 1949 Geneva conventions; those conventions were built on the 1864 Geneva convention, which was linked to the creation of the Red Cross. On 12 August—the glorious 12th—it will be the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva conventions. Oddly enough, that happens to be my uncle’s birthday; even more oddly, he used to make “The Famous Grouse”. That date will be a multiple anniversary this year. The four conventions of 1949 were built on former versions. First and foremost, they were to protect the wounded or the sick and ensure that such defenceless combatants should be respected and cared for, whatever their nationality. The personnel attending them, the buildings in which they sheltered and the equipment used for their benefit were to be protected, and a red cross on a white background was to be the emblem of that immunity. Other elements of that first convention have been modified over the years—in relation, for instance, to medical personnel and chaplains. Originally, if such personnel fell into enemy hands, they had to be repatriated immediately. Now, however, the situation is rather different. The second convention related to the protection of those in combat at sea. The third was for the protection of prisoners of war. For many centuries, this country has sought to make sure that there was a proper understanding of how prisoners of war should be protected. The French have sometimes tried to remind us about Agincourt, but for the past few hundred years we have been wholeheartedly committed to ensuring that prisoners of war are treated properly. Finally, the fourth convention was to protect civilians. The distinctive emblem has been referred to and is being amended by the new optional protocol. It was defined in article 38 of one of the 1949 Geneva conventions: “As a compliment to Switzerland, the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground, formed by reversing the Federal colours, is retained as the emblem and distinctive sign of the Medical Service of armed forces.” That gave protection to all those who were serving.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- I am following the Minister’s points with great interest. Does the symbol of Switzerland not also carry the connotation of neutrality and have a lot of history behind it, to do with the Hospitallers and so on? The sign is very distinctive and well recognised worldwide. It is known, and the same is true of the red crescent. How can the new symbol be marketed so that people fighting wars in far-distant places will recognise it and give it the same authority? We are talking about signs that are so emblematic and well known. Is adding a third one a good idea?
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- There is already a third one in the conventions—the red lion and sun—so that Persia had an emblem that it could adopt. The hon. Gentleman is right that the signs are emblematic. I say that with a slight rise of the eyebrow, because what one flag or emblem symbolises to one set of people—perhaps even the majority of the world—will not necessarily be symbolised to everybody. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Hospitallers, and the reference to the crusades is not lost on some people, although anybody in the Red Cross would wholly deprecate the association. None the less, the truth is that in some cases it has been difficult for us to ensure that connotations of a religious war or crusade do not undermine the work that the Red Cross or Red Crescent are able to do.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HealdConservative
- Quote
- I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. In broad terms, I am sympathetic to the Bill. I worry, however, that we will have symbol after symbol until almost every country, or every continent, has a symbol in addition to the ones that we have already. In the end, the famous nature of the red cross might be diminished.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- The honest truth is that in the vast majority of cases, certainly as they affect the United Kingdom, people will retain either the red cross or the red crescent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should not be amplifying these symbols. As I said, we have had three emblems, including the red lion and sun, which modern Iran chooses not to use. In a sense, therefore, we are back down to two. There have been moves in some other countries towards being able to create other symbols; hon. Members may want to make reference to the situation in Israel. In wanting to be able to accommodate the whole world, we should not be seeking to create a different emblem for every part of it. We should be going through a proper process to ensure that the rules governing emblems are adhered to so that there are not wild divergences and they are properly respected.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- The Minister touched on the star of David, which the Israelis want as their symbol. Does he anticipate that the advent of the red crystal will reduce pressure from Israel to use the star of David? Otherwise, there could be three, if not four symbols in the middle east.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman may know that the Israeli national society, the Magen David Adom, has used the red star of David, although only internally, which has meant that it has not been able to join the international Red Cross movement. Importantly, the introduction of the red crystal has enabled Israel to sign up to become a part of the Red Cross movement, so Israelis and Palestinians have been able to share in the movement. That is not the biggest step that we need to take in the middle east process, but it helps to move us forward.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- This is a very important issue; it is not only about emblems but about their significance. I fully share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the red cross is universally recognised. The Minister will understand that I approach the issue from a military perspective. The armed forces know and recognise the red cross; equally, it is generally the case that the red cross is not abused. I am worried that unless there is a rigorous regime to ensure that the red crystal is not abused, our armed forces, who are already feeling hamstrung by human rights legislation, could find that our enemies abuse the red crystal and our troops would therefore be at risk. What assurances can the Minister give Britain’s armed forces in that respect?
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I know of the interest that the hon. Gentleman has historically taken in the armed forces, which, as he knows, I share. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that there is strong protection for the symbols that are already used, and equally so for the red crystal. Where it is used because it is thought to be the most appropriate means of protecting the medical forces, we need to ensure that it is fully understood. My experience during a brief visit to Basra with the armed forces parliamentary scheme showed me that the British armed forces are very well attuned to the business of winning hearts and minds, and part of that will be making the right decisions on the ground about which emblem to use. Equally, we have to ensure that as many countries as possible ratify and enter into this process, so that they understand, and can ensure that their armed forces understand, the significance of the emblems. It is important to emphasise that the decision on the red crystal did not come out of thin air; it was a long, complicated process involving a lot of different countries that had found it difficult to decide between different emblems. For instance, in Eritrea the decision is not between a emblem that does not exist and one that does, but between the red cross and the red crescent, because those are the symbols of the two religious communities in the country, who have very strongly held religious views. In that circumstance, the red crystal forestalls the need for inventing lots of new emblems by deciding on one that can be used more generically.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP)Scottish National Party- Quote
- I agree with the Minister that there has to be international support in developing an understanding of the red crystal symbol. However, are there not practical concerns that it might be misinterpreted, particularly on a battlefield? A red crystal on an armband worn by an orderly will look like a lozenge or a diamond shape unless the arm is bent, when it could look like a red square.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- The same could be true of a red cross, because if the arm is bent in the right way it ends up no longer being a cross, but a sword. I am afraid that those issues remain. In fact, as often as not the colour is the determinant. Professional brand managers say that people do not recognise a brand until they have seen it 16 times. After that, the effect will often be created by the precise Pantone shade that is used, the combination of red and white, and seeing it in a military context. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, as have all other hon. Members.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- Is there any general move in order to try to remove ambiguity towards the crystal evolving into the main symbol and the other two going out of use?
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- No, there is not, and I do not think that that would be appropriate. There is no need to abandon the red cross or the red crescent, which are very well known and much respected symbols. However, there are circumstances in which a third or fourth emblem is necessary, or would be useful. There is no need, certainly in the short term, for us to move towards abandoning the red cross.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- This is an important subject, as I said when we debated the programme motion. The universality of the cross and the crescent is their virtue. The problem with the Bill is that it proposes a multiplication of symbols, or emblems. I cannot think that that is compatible with universality, which has been at the heart of the success of the cross and the crescent.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is interesting that he used the phrase, “The universality of the cross”. To many conservative evangelical Christians, that phrase would have a capital U and a capital C, and it would have a very strong religious significance—although he obviously did not intend it in that sense. For many, the cross is what they live and die for. In that context—in which, in some parts of the world, religion can be one of the axes that is used to create division and wars—it is important that we are able to have an additional symbol. He refers to a proliferation of symbols, but that will not happen: there will not be additional symbols coming down the line in a couple of years’ time. One more symbol is being added to the list, with one of the three existing symbols no longer being in use.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HayesConservative
- Quote
- The cross has been used as a symbol since prehistoric times. It can be traced to almost every culture, Christian and other, as a symbol that represents a variety of things, such as health, peace or fertility, depending on which culture one turns to. To identify the cross purely, or largely, with the Christian tradition is to misunderstand its history.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I am being tempted down theological lines, which is quite dangerous, so I should rather like to say, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands the point that there are situations in which forces that are trying to do good would be afforded better protection and better understanding among the local population if they did not use a symbol that could be misunderstood as having a largely religious undertone or overtone. That is what we are seeking to avoid.
- Time
- 14:14
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HealdConservative
- Quote
- I am trespassing on the Minister’s good will, but we have established that a symbol such as the cross or the crescent is historic and well known. Even in places where there is not a proper education system and there is not an easy opportunity to market a new symbol, people know about crosses and crescents. How will we be able to establish the new brand of the crystal in a war-torn place where perhaps only half the children go to school? In such places, where this really matters, will it be easy to establish the new symbol?
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I do not believe that we need to establish it in every part of the world with immediate effect. The truth of the matter is that there are many parts of the world where the current symbols are perfectly adequate and perfectly well understood. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman suggests that there might be parts of the world where brands cannot be marketed. I do not think that Coca-Cola believes that. It believes that there is no such part of the world. One of the great successes of Mr. Henri Dunant’s original idea following the battle of Solferino was that something without words in it could cross linguistic barriers and be readily understandable around the world. That is what the Red Cross movement has achieved. I wish to pay substantial tribute to the British Red Cross Society, which has been around since 1870—we were one of the earlier countries to adopt the red cross. It does great work, and I know that many people hold it in high esteem and would be saddened if it changed from the Red Cross Society to anything else. However, it wholeheartedly supports the Bill. Around the world, the Red Cross movement hopes that as many countries as possible will ratify the change. It has already meant that the Israeli and Palestinian societies have been able to join the movement, and it will give the movement a strong future for many decades, and I hope centuries.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HayesConservative
- Quote
- I have no desire to be unnecessarily disputatious, but the Minister mentions Henri Dunant and Solferino. I recommend to the House Dunant’s book on Solferino. What he wanted was not only protection but, as the Minister will know, an international agreement to secure that protection. Implicit in that appeal was the recognition, through a symbol, of protection that was non-partisan and universally available. I am very concerned about the issue of universality, and I hope that the Minister might say another word about it before he sits down, after which I am sure we can make time for other contributions.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I suspect that however many words I say about the universality of the original symbol, I will not be able to appease the hon. Gentleman. The truth of the matter—I keep on saying “the truth of the matter”, and I must stop doing so—is that when the original symbol was created it was not envisaged that there would be parts of the world where there might be disputation about whether it involved religious significance. Consequently, we have grown to have not just one symbol but three, and now we are moving towards having a fourth. I like to think, and those who dedicate their lives to the Red Cross movement believe, that that is fully consistent with what Mr. Dunant aspired to. Indeed, as a former deputy leader of the Labour party said, sometimes we need traditional values in a modern setting. That is precisely what we can advance now. As I have said, three emblems are currently allowed—the cross, the crescent and the lion and sun, although the last is not much used now. There are some problems, including misunderstanding about religious symbols. For some, the cross is a highly religious and divisive symbol. For others it is a symbol of unity, and when they see the red cross they do not see a religious symbol at all. Eritrea has been unable to choose which is the right symbol to use, and Israel likewise. I am delighted that bringing forward the red crystal has made it possible to enable both Israelis and Palestinians to take part in the movement.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. It is a very important one, and I know that he will do an excellent job. May I ask my hon. Friend to clear up some of the nuts and bolts of the matter? If three symbols will be accepted, that does not mean, does it, that nations will be able to pick and choose which of the three they will allow people to use to visit political prisoners, for example, and do all the things that the Red Cross does so brilliantly at the moment, often in very difficult circumstances? It will not somehow result in three different organisations that people will use for nefarious purposes, destroying the central goodness of what the Red Cross and the Red Crescent do.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and neighbour for his comments. He was a fine Minister in the Foreign Office, and there are fond memories of him skulking around the corridors—it was not him skulking around the corridors, it is the memories. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will not be different organisations, and the structure will still be the same. It would be wholly wrong for people to swap armbands every afternoon or every second day according to who they were visiting. In the vast majority of cases, they will stick with the symbols that are already known—the red cross and the red crescent. However, there may be circumstances in which a national organisation, working only within its own territory, wants to incorporate within the crystal its own symbol, for instance the red star of David. That could happen only in national circumstances, which seems sensible. Likewise, if British defence medical agencies and services overseas judged in a particular conflict that using the red crystal rather than the red cross would afford them greater protection and bring greater understanding among the public, they would be free to do so. That choice has to be made on a pragmatic basis, but it should not change and flip-flop all the time, because that would itself undermine clarity. For the most part, I suspect that they will not need to take that step, but in some circumstances they will.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- Will the Minister pursue a little further the point that the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made? Can he confirm that the distinction will be between the internationally recognised protective symbols, which will now include the red crystal and which confer the right to protection upon an organisation or vehicle, and an indicative symbol such as the red star of David, which could be used within a national territory as part of a fundraising or publicity drive or as a means of identifying an individual or vehicle? Will it be only the cross, the crescent and the crystal that will confer the right to protection under both domestic and international law?
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman is right—he put it better than I could, as doubtless he often will in the many debates in which we engage, though I am not sure whether I shall admit to that on subsequent occasions. There is a difference between using the emblem for protective purposes and using it for fundraising or for the relevant body in one’s own country. That is why it is important to police the convention equally. We want to ensure that the Red Cross movement is not disaggregated or undermined.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HealdConservative
- Quote
- Things could become very confusing. If every country has a choice between the red crescent, the red cross and the red crystal for protecting vehicles and in addition a local brand, such as a red antelope or a red star of David, how on earth will people in places where there are armies that are not well organised like the British Army, but are in wars in informal settings and not much cop, be clear about what constitutes a protective symbol? It sounds like a recipe for confusion.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I am sorry if I have misled the hon. Gentleman—I never want to do that. We do not envisage every country in the world inventing its own brand, emblem or logo because, as he said, that would lead to confusion and undermine the whole proposal. People use the existing emblems because they afford protection. If they no longer afforded protection, people would not use them. If there were so many emblems as to cause confusion, that would undermine the structure and point of the Red Cross movement. That is why the provision is tied up with so much determination by all the states that are signatories to the convention to deal robustly with any abuse of the emblems. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) is leaning forward desirously.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his new post. Who decides which symbol or emblem will be used in a particular country? He talks about signatories to the convention, but how many have signed up to the proposal and how many have so far ratified it?
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I thought somebody might ask that question and I have the answer. Forty counties, including Israel, have ratified and a further 48 have signed but have yet to complete the ratification process. So we are doing well. If British armed forces medical services were taking part in a war entirely on a British basis, Britain would decide which emblem afforded its medical services the greatest protection. In the vast majority of cases, it will be the red cross. If we were part of a multinational operation, it would make sense for the whole operation to decide how to proceed. Otherwise, as hon. Members have said, a proliferation of different symbols would undermine the protection that an emblem affords. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. I will try to answer some further questions. A few hon. Members have referred to the combination of emblems. As the hon. Member—or the hon. chorister—for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, when used by armed forces medical and religious personnel as protection against attack in a conflict, the emblems cannot be used in combination. Only the four distinctive emblems can be used for protective purposes. For indicative purposes, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, national societies in the various states that decide to use the red crystal may choose to incorporate the red cross, the red crescent or the red star of David in the red crystal when using it in conformity with relevant national legislation. A national society—for example, the British Red Cross—may use and display the combined emblem only within its national territory. That means that the British Red Cross could display an emblem showing the red cross in the frame of the red crystal, but only to promote its activities in the UK.
- Time
- 14:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LidingtonConservative
- Quote
- I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the clause, and I shall not oppose the stand part motion at the debate’s conclusion. I shall simply make a couple of brief points. I was intrigued when the Minister, almost in parenthesis, referred to the old symbol of the red lion and sun, which the royalist regime in Iran employed. I think I understood him to say that, although the symbol is no longer used, it remains a part of the appropriate conventions and it could be revived in future by some hypothetical Government in Iran, or somewhere else in the world, who chose to revert to the red lion and sun. The adoption of the red crystal is the outcome of pragmatic negotiations and I am pleased that the decision means that it will be possible at long last for the Israeli and the Palestinian humanitarian organisations to participate fully in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent family.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- Just for the sake of completeness, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the red lion and sun is available for use only in Iran.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LidingtonConservative
- Quote
- I am grateful to the Minister for making that point clear. The Minister said that the British Red Cross Society was strongly behind clause 1 and the Bill as a whole, and I can certainly vouch for that. I would say to those of my hon. Friends who perhaps still harbour some uncertainty about the measures that, having earlier this year met the chairman of the British Red Cross Society and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Dr. Kellenberger, I am completely satisfied that both organisations strongly support what is proposed in clause 1 and the Bill as a whole. I was grateful for the Minister’s assurances that it would be wrong to see the red crystal as a symbol that was intended to supplant either the red cross or the red crescent; were that to become the case, it would arouse considerable disquiet among the many thousands of people in all our constituencies who have given freely of their time and money over the years to support the efforts of the British Red Cross Society. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred in an intervention to the potential use of the red crystal by British troops. I noted that the Minister said that its use by British forces would be a pragmatic decision for field commanders to take on the basis of circumstances and that no presumption would be made that they should abandon the red cross. I would simply express the clear view that it would be wrong were there to be any pressure or any assumption on the part of the Ministry of Defence that such a change ought to be made. It is better for the confidence of the British public that the red cross, which is the symbol that people in this country recognise and respect, should continue to be used by our armed forces wherever possible. A departure from that principle should certainly be the exception, rather than be allowed to become the norm. With that slight reservation, I am happy to give my support to clause 1.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- This has been a fascinating and informative debate, not least because we have found out the birthday and occupation of the Minister’s relations. It is always interesting to have some new information and some anecdotes to lighten the debate. This is an important debate on an important Bill, which the Government are right to introduce and ensure that the UK passes. To people in this country, the red cross is seen not as a religious symbol but as something entirely neutral. However, if that is not the case in some places in the world, and if that can lead to confusion and, potentially, endanger people who are doing important work, it is obviously right that the international community should act to change the situation. I am sure we have all received information and leaflets from the ICRC encouraging us to support the Bill. We have had some debate about the origins of the cross and how it has been used by different cultures. In some contexts, the red cross is obviously seen as religious, but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that it is the reversal of the Swiss flag, and therefore represents neutrality. I was intrigued by the Bill’s description of the crystal, which it defines as “the emblem of a red frame in the shape of a square on edge on a white ground, conforming to the illustration in Article 1 of the Annex to the third protocol”. As was remarked upon in previous stages, this Bill is one of the first to include a diagram.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- This is not the first Bill to do that: the Bill that became the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 did so as well. It is just a shame that we cannot print in red.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Jo SwinsonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- A mine of intriguing information is our Minister. Presumably the 1957 Act introduced the red cross, but I wonder whether he could say in summing up whether it introduced the red crescent too or whether that was introduced in a later Act. The shape in the Bill, which is described as a crystal, could also be described as a diamond. Indeed, at election time I have been known to have posters in the shape of a diamond—at least we tend to call them diamonds. However, the marketing manager in me was quite impressed that, after all the discussion about the most appropriate shape, we have called the shape a crystal rather than a diamond. We therefore have that nice alliteration, with the red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal. It seems that everything has been thought of. In answer to an intervention, the Minister said that 40 countries had ratified the measures and that another 48 had signed up to them. I do not want to confuse this point with the debate on clause 2—I appreciate that the protocols in clause 2 have also been signed and ratified by a certain number of countries—but I wonder whether the Minister could inform us in his final remarks whether a certain number is needed for the measures to come into effect. I appreciate that that is the case for the other protocols—the Minister pointed out on Second Reading that a further number was required, and I think that the magic number was 22. Some time has passed between that debate and this debate, so it would be welcome to know whether the provisions are yet in effect or whether we still await that. I would like to welcome the Minister’s comments about cluster munitions and the fact that the Government have moved from their position of allowing so-called smart cluster bombs, which none the less maim and kill indiscriminately. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to find time for the Government to bring forward the ban on such munitions. It is important when we are discussing the technicalities of a symbol that will be used in war zones that we remember the horrors that are experienced where such symbols are used. We are talking about people being wounded and killed in the most horrific circumstances, so the issue is of the gravest importance. The general consensus is welcome, and I will be supporting clause 1.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- This has been an interesting and informative debate. I am fully in support of the Bill, but I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to a couple of the points that have arisen. First, I have a slight concern about the possible proliferation of symbols. It was mentioned that although the Iranians do not currently use the red lion and sun, they still have the right to use it. Can the Minister clarify whether they have the right to use it only in Iran or could they use it anywhere in the world, and if so, could that cause confusion? My second point is about implementation. When does the international agreement come into effect? Does it need a certain number of countries to ratify it? At what point will the new red crystal be used as a symbol of protection? Once countries have ratified the agreement, are they entitled to use the symbol or is there a point at which the whole world would be entitled to use it? I would be grateful for clarification on those two points.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Hayes Conservative
- Quote
- As the Minister and the shadow Minister said, this is not a partisan matter, but it is an important one and, in my judgment, it requires a rather fuller exploration than it has enjoyed thus far, although I do not say that in a pejorative way. As one might expect with such a short Bill, clause 1 goes to the heart of the matter. The Bill’s purpose is, in essence, to amend previous Acts, in particular the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which I hope to say a little more about in my contribution. Inasmuch as the Bill amends the 1957 Act, much of what we have discussed so far has focused on the change to that Act in respect of emblems. We debated this matter on Second Reading, but at that stage we did not know quite how the Bill would fare in the other place. Since then, I have received representations on the issue—I am sure that other hon. Members have as well—from a variety of agencies and constituents. This is first of all about symbols, protocols and conventions. When the Minister says that the cross might cause offence, I am minded to reprise the remarks of G. K. Chesterton, who said that those who dislike the cross do so not because it is a dead symbol but because it is a live symbol. The cross has significance not only because it is recognised as a Christian symbol but because it has been associated with Christian and non-Christian cultures since time immemorial as a symbol of peace, good health and good spirit.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman cites G. K. Chesterton, but Chesterton had a very firm understanding of the theological significance of the cross. He referred to it primarily in a proselytising sense. Indeed, that might be the potential danger in its use. I should also like to point out that I never used the word “offence” in relation to the cross. This is merely a question of whether people might misunderstand the red cross and take it to have an exclusively religious significance that is not intended.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HayesConservative
- Quote
- Of course that is true about Chesterton. He was making a case for a Christian emblem. The case that I am making is that the living nature of the cross extends beyond that narrow definition. The cross is perceived fairly universally as a symbol of peace, of the union of heaven and earth, and of the sun and the stars. It is seen as a world centre and a cosmic axis. It represents the human form, with its four cardinal points. It can map the fourfold system, the four directions—north, south, east and west—the four seasons and the four elements. In Christian imagery, as the Minister is well qualified to attest, the cross usually has an elongated southern element, because the cross in Christian imagery represents the crucifix. The red cross does not look like a crucifix; it is a simple cross, each part of which is the same length. It has a symmetry. Of course I accept that the red crescent was adopted because of the doubts that the Minister has articulated—the debate on this matter has gone on for a long time—but I am not sure that those doubts are well founded, given the universality of the cross. When we debated the new symbol, the Minister acknowledged that it would not gain immediate acceptance because it might not be recognised straight away. Therein lies the nub of the problem. If the principle of a cross or a crescent is that it is widely recognisable and universally understood, and that its protective value as a device lies in that comprehension, a symbol that does not proffer immediate recognition might not proffer the protection that it is designed to provide. I do not want to dwell on the specifics of the symbol at this point, but to set the matter in context. As I have said, this debate has been going on almost since the beginning of the Red Cross movement. A lively debate has been conducted since the end of the 19th century on whether the cross should be the movement’s only symbol, and whether it was the appropriate symbol to use in all places at all times. That was the very debate that gave rise to the adoption of the red crescent. The problem with the solution proposed in the Bill is that it would be entirely possible for a multiplication of symbols to emerge, as has been suggested by several contributors to the debate. It is possible that, once this new symbol has been adopted, others might make similar claims. The point about universality is important. It is probable that we will get away with having one more symbol, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the Red Cross itself have said that they will not oppose the proposal. But what would happen if we were to add one or two more symbols? At what point would the recognition that lies at the heart of a symbol’s value become compromised? I make no judgment about that; I simply raise the point for hon. Members’ consideration. Indicative devices show the link that a person or object has with a movement. Once that link has been broken in terms of popular perception, the device loses its force. Emblems should typically bear additional information, as most emblems do not speak for themselves. They imply more than the simplicity of a red cross. It is important to set all these considerations in their historical context. The Red Cross is the world’s largest humanitarian movement, with approximately 97 million volunteers worldwide. As the Minister said, it was inspired by Henry Dunant after his experience of seeing the dead and dying lying forlorn. He felt that something should be done on a non-partisan basis to ease their suffering and to deal with similar tragic circumstances. He wrote about that after the battle of Solferino in 1859, and I recommend his book to Members, because it makes the case that lies at the heart of these considerations. Henry Dunant proposed the creation of national relief societies made up of volunteers trained in peacetime to provide neutral and impartial help to relieve suffering in times of war. Central to his concerns was his second proposal, which was to establish an international agreement—this became the Geneva conventions, as we now know—to oversee the support and humanitarian assistance that he craved. The proposals in the final resolutions at the conference that ensued from his efforts were adopted in October 1863. They are simple, and they are highly relevant to this part of the Bill. They included proposals for the foundation of a national relief society for wounded soldiers, for neutrality and for the protection of the wounded, for the utilisation of volunteer forces for the relief and assistance of those on battlefields, for the organisation of additional conferences to enact these concepts in legally binding international treaties, and for the introduction of a common, distinctive protection symbol for medical personnel in the field—namely, a white armlet bearing a red cross. The armlet bearing a red cross was the original protection symbol declared at the 1864 Geneva convention. It represents a reversal of the Swiss national flag, and it was adopted to honour the Swiss founder of the movement, Henry Dunant, and his home country. That is interesting in itself, because few would argue that the Swiss flag is specifically identified by most reasonable people as a Christian flag. [Interruption.] I understand why the Minister is shaking his head, but most people do not think of the Swiss flag first and foremost as a Christian emblem. Ideas to introduce a uniform and neutral protection symbol, as well as a specific design, came from the original founding members of the international committee. The red cross was initially defined as a protection symbol under article 7 of chapter VII of the Geneva convention of 1864—“The distinctive emblem”—and then under article 38 of the Geneva convention of 1949— “For the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field”. There is an unofficial agreement within the Red Cross and Red Crescent movements that the shape of the cross should be of a cross composed of five squares. I argued earlier that the distinctiveness of the red cross and the difference between it and the kind of cross typically used in Christian imagery are highly pertinent. However, regardless of the shape, any red cross on a white background should be valid and must be recognised as a protection symbol in conflicts. Here I believe the Minister has a valid point. Although the red cross that we all think of first when we think about the Red Cross movement is the one used officially on most occasions, in the heat of battle as it were, other red crosses might be used that could be more easily misinterpreted. I take the Minister’s point that he did not use the word “offence”, but I am going to use it and say that it could give rise to offence, making such a symbol less useful or worse. I do not therefore disregard the points raised by the Minister and others about the need to be sensitive on this subject, but I do really worry about the possibility of the proliferation of the number of symbols and any effect that might have on universal recognition.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dr. HowellsLabour
- Quote
- I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s historical lesson, which is very instructive, but I want to tease something out of him. Is he worried about the possibility that iconoclastic leaders such as Chavez, Ahmadinejad or Kim Il Jung would want their own symbols for nationalistic purposes and to reinforce their independence? Is that the sort of proliferation that he is worried about?
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HayesConservative
- Quote
- It is interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman put it that way. I had not wanted to make a case quite as arch as that, as I did not at first think that symbols could be used in such a malevolent way. I was more concerned about confusion or even mischievous use. He is quite right, however, that it may well be worse than that and my concerns about confusion may well be an underestimation of the problem. It is indeed possible for the malevolent proliferation of symbols to take place in tandem with a nationalistic approach, which would be entirely contrary and injurious to the principles established in those early days by the founders of the Red Cross movement and, indeed, those of the Red Crescent movement. Those principles are widely recognised throughout the House as doing immeasurable good, so the right hon. Gentleman makes a useful point about what might happen. I know that the Minister will be as concerned as anyone about that and will do all he can on behalf of the Government to ensure that those possibilities are excluded, if at all possible, in the councils in which these issues are debated. I do not wish to prolong these matters, but I was about to say that of the 186 national societies currently recognised by the International Committee of the Red Cross, 152 use the red cross as their official organisational emblem. In addition, the red cross is used by the national society of Tuvalu, which has applied for official recognition. Henri Dunant, who has figured largely—and not unreasonably so—in our considerations, also proposed that countries should adopt an international agreement that will recognise the status of medical services and the wounded on the battlefield. The resulting Geneva convention is now widely recognised by countries throughout the world as providing relief and support to the victims of international conflicts, disasters and wars. That includes refugees from the Hungarian revolution of 1956, from Vietnam in 1976, from the Iranian earthquake in 1962 and the famine in Africa in 1989; and in the UK, the British Red Cross has provided emergency relief following the disaster in Aberfan, the Lockerbie air disaster, the Easter floods in 1998 and the devastating summer floods in 2007.
- Time
- 14:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. MossConservative
- Quote
- I assume, Mrs. Heal, that I will be in order if I speak in the clause stand part debate about the schedule to the Bill and its proposed schedule 7 to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, as clause 1(8) refers to inserting schedule 7 after schedule 6, and at our rate of progress this afternoon I doubt whether we will ever reach the schedule, let alone Third Reading.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Quote
- Yes, as I doubt very much that we will reach a debate on proposed schedule 7, it is indeed appropriate for the hon. Member to comment on it at this stage.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. MossConservative
- Quote
- Thank you very much, Mrs. Heal. Proposed schedule 7 states: “Recalling further that National Societies undertaking activities on the territory of another State must ensure that the emblems they intend to use within the framework of such activities may be used in the country where the activity takes place and in the country or countries of transit.” This comes back to a question that I put to the Minister in an intervention: who decides? The phrase “may be used” suggests that permission for a symbol to be used needs to be given by the country that our armed forces are operating in or travelling through. Is that vested in international law—in other words, does the country have to have signed up to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957—or does the local law of the country itself determine whether it accepts a particular symbol? Also, if contiguous countries have different views, will our armed forces and their vehicles have to keep switching their symbols as they move from one country to another? The Minister may not be able to answer that right away, but I would like an answer at some juncture, if possible.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made a highly informative and fascinating—if also slightly sceptical—speech. At the end of it, he invited me to speak about semiotics and the difference between signs and symbols. Most of my university English degree seemed to be obsessed with Saussurian analysis of semiotics, and then when I arrived at theological college I had to discuss the hermeneutical circle for about three years. [Interruption.] It is not that difficult to spell “hermeneutical”. I remember very clearly a Scottish theologian who taught at Oxford saying as part of his address on systematic theology and symbolism in religion that a lot of people ask, “What do we mean by God?” but we should really be asking, “What do we mean by ‘mean’?” Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not return to the hermeneutical circle this afternoon. However, I would just say that on these issues I am closer to Urs von Balthasar and Coleridge than I am to Lacan.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HayesConservative
- Quote
- What the whole House wants to know is: what does the Minister mean by “what”?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I am not sure the Minister understands what he means by “mean” or “what” in this particular circumstance, so let us move on to the issue of the cross and whether it could raise offence. The hon. Gentleman pointed to various different ways in which the cross can be interpreted but, of course, the possible interpretations depend on whether one is referring to the Cross with a capital C, which for many Christians is the Cross on which Jesus died. How that should be presented has been hotly disputed between Catholics and Protestants over the years; one dispute is about whether the symbol of a Cross should be used at all in churches. Therefore, the religious connotations that can be attached—and are attached by many people—either for good or ill can make it more difficult in certain, limited, circumstances for the Red Cross movement to be able to do its job. If that is the case, we need to have the additional symbols. For me, the fact that it is the Red Cross imparts an element of the concept of Christian charity to the work of the Red Cross, but I understand that others think of that in a pejorative sense, not a positive sense. They might also think of the child being baptised with the sign of the Cross and being told to fight valiantly for Christ against the devil. For many people, that is not a positive symbol. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Red Cross symbol is different from any other crosses as its arms and legs, as it were, are of equal length, but so are those of the cross of St. George and I do not think anybody doubts that the cross of St. George is a religious symbol. Let me clarify a couple of other matters. Several Members mentioned the issue of the red lion and sun and whether that is to be used only in Iran or only by Iran. The situation is that it is for Iran—properly speaking, it was for Persia—to use, and it has not done so since 1980. I do not think other countries or peoples would want, or choose, to do so, so it is not a matter that arises in any case.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HayesConservative
- Quote
- Would there be a purpose then in detaching the red lion from the protocol, or would it be better to just let it wither on the vine?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- In my estimation, it would be an unnecessary row to have. It would also involve many other countries trying to agree a new protocol, and I cannot see that there would be any great value in that. It sits there and is not greatly used. It stemmed originally from 13th century Persian understandings, but it is not used. The other issue to which I should refer is the question of when this comes into effect. The original protocol makes it clear that it comes into effect when two countries have ratified. I have a list of those who have signed and ratified, and a separate list of those who have signed. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) asked me which countries are on the list, but I think that it would be unnecessary to read them out. I am happy to write to her so that she can compare notes. There is no greater requirement than two countries ratifying, so it has already come into operation. Without further ado—
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. MossConservative
- Quote
- rose—
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- Well, apparently there will be further ado.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. MossConservative
- Quote
- The Minister has not answered my question. If the answer is long in coming, perhaps he would undertake to write to me with an explanation. That would be satisfactory.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- More to the point, the Minister cannot remember the question, so whether he would be able to remember the answer is quite another matter—[Interruption.] I know that it related to schedule 7, and the hon. Gentleman referred to line 36, but I think that he meant line 36 on the first page of the schedule, because it has several line 36s. I will write to him at length on the issue, although I do not think that it will prevent him from supporting the clause. For the sake of the fullness of the debate, I will be happy to write to him. Without further ado, I shall now sit down. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Amendments of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I hope that hon. Members, albeit in a slightly querulous and sceptical mode, will also support clause 2 standing part of the Bill. It will amend the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 to incorporate the optional protocol to the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel. The original Act has been used to protect operations maintaining or restoring international peace and security and operations in which an exceptional risk exists. It has been necessary to bring forward the optional protocol because there is a loophole: there are operations that are not maintaining or restoring international peace and security, but are peace building. They go beyond the stage of peacekeeping, but the Security Council has not determined that an exceptional risk exists. Consequently, the full protection afforded by the 1997 Act and the convention is not extended to those operations. First, we must amend UK law to give effect to the optional protocol, and that is what we are doing this afternoon. Next comes the process of ratification, whereby we lay down the optional protocol before Parliament, under the Ponsonby rule, and after 21 days it is considered to be ratified. We then lodge the instruments of ratification and accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In the previous debate, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) asked when the provision came into force. She was right to say that it comes into force when 22 countries have ratified and sent their instruments of ratification and accession to the Secretary-General. At the moment, there are 19 on the list, so when we add ourselves there will be 20. The countries involved include Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Bulgaria, the Central African Republic, Chile, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine and Uruguay. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, there are a large number of UN peacekeeping and peace-building missions around the world, from the presence in the middle east that started in 1948 to the mission in the Central African Republic and in Chad, which started only in 2008 when an EU mission handed over to the UN and where we are dealing with a lot of the knock-on effect from Darfur. In countries such as Burundi, the mission is a peace-building mission, as we have moved on from peacekeeping. It is important, none the less, that UN people who are working there have the full protection that would otherwise be afforded them.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dr. HowellsLabour
- Quote
- My hon. Friend just read out a long list of countries, some of which I found very surprising. Mali, for one, has a Government who are trying to combat terrorism and is the recipient of help from the UN and other bodies. It is also where we have just seen the al-Qaeda murder of a British citizen. In a situation such as that in Afghanistan, where the mission is UN-led but has all manner of activities going on, including fighting and reconstruction—often in the same place—how does one distinguish between somebody who is classified as a UN worker and is therefore the recipient of protection under the terms of this amendment and others, and somebody who is a fighter and, presumably, not the recipient of the same protection, despite the fact that they are both being led by the UN on a clearly defined mission?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- The protection is afforded to those who are directly involved in the UN peacekeeping mission and to those who are employed by direct agencies of the UN. It does not extend to further bodies. The truth is that in the various different missions around the world, the level of risk is differently estimated. We are keen to ensure that all the countries in which there are missions at present sign up. It is true that not all the countries where there are missions have so far signed up. That is why, although there will not be much immediate impact in the UK—we do not intend to have UN peacekeeping missions to the UK, so there is no direct likelihood of any such eventuality in this country—our ratification of the provision is part of the process of encouraging other countries to ratify that might otherwise be reluctant to do so. Obviously, that is true for countries as divergent as Liberia and Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend mentioned Afghanistan, where there was a UN assistance mission, which is now a political mission. The situation is similar in Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is good that Cyprus has now ratified—that is somewhere where there is a UN peacekeeping mission. Our aim is to create the universality of protection that he envisages.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LidingtonConservative
- Quote
- If I heard him correctly, the Minister said a moment ago that not all countries with UN missions had yet signed up. However, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is now a Minister of State at the Department of Health, said on Second Reading that “five countries with UN missions in their territories”— I presume that she meant UN peace building missions— “have signed the protocol.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2009; Vol. 490, c. 980.] I am not trying to trip up the Minister, but it would be helpful for the House to be clear about this. One question that I have raised previously about this part of the Bill has to do with the fact that the optional protocol does not define “peace building” in the way that earlier protocols defined “peace making”. That does not pose an immediate problem if those countries with peace-building missions have signed up already, but there could be a problem in the future when it comes to defining exactly what sort of UN activity is covered by the additional protection being given.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I apologise if I inadvertently misled him. As I understand it, the five countries with peace-building missions have signed up, but if I am wrong I shall be happy to write to him. However, there are missions in 16 countries, and they obviously vary in their aims and the goals that they are intended to pursue. The point is that peacekeeping missions already have protection, whereas those missions involved in peace building that the Security Council has not said are at serious risk do not have protection. As the Security Council has never said that about any mission, it is clear that there is a legal loophole that the optional protocol is designed to tidy up. I have to correct an impression that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, and which has to do with the number of countries that have signed and ratified the optional protocol. Thirty-four countries have signed the optional protocol, and 18 have ratified it. That number will become 19 if we ratify it, and 22 countries have to do so for the optional protocol to come into force.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. HayesConservative
- Quote
- The Minister will be delighted to know that this will be my final intervention, but clause 2 deals with the optional protocol that extends the convention’s authority to deal with humanitarian aid. However, as the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) suggested, it brings us back to the issue of protection, and to signs and symbols. Will the Minister buttonhole this once and for all? Surely a sign has a strictly limited meaning but a symbol, as Jung argued, is far more subtle. When we use a symbol, we imply or suggest all that lies behind it. Does the Minister agree that, when it comes to protection, that is critical? He is well qualified to answer that, as he is Jung at heart.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I think that I can match that. There is a very fine book called “Jung and the Christian Way”, written by a Christopher Bryant—although not this one. The author is a different Christopher Bryant, but I have read the book and could expand at length about what it says about the collective subconscious and the rest, although I do not think that that would be strictly relevant to clause 2. However, I think that I can help the House by saying that the protocol covers UN personnel or contractors only. That means that UN peacekeepers are covered, but NATO troops are not—a clear distinction, as the latter are not UN personnel.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dr. HowellsLabour
- Quote
- I am sorry to interrupt again on this point, but it is very important. I have been in some of the armpits of the world and have seen UN peace builders and keepers doing amazing work, but they have been able to do that work only because they have had NATO personnel guarding them. How does one differentiate a UN worker—they are clearly defined in the schedules and the original agreements—from NATO or other troops, without whose protection UN workers cannot work? How do we convince the enemy—insurgents, the Taliban or whoever—that those workers are not there simply because they are being guarded and allowed to be there by troops who are not covered by these provisions?
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I have not been to so many of the places to which my right hon. Friend refers; my own experience has been in places such as Bosnia, where the EU was doing its business of peace building. It is difficult to distinguish between peacekeeping and peace building, but after a while one realises that that is what one is definitely doing. Thus, processes such as going house to house to ensure that any rocket launchers left in people’s garages are taken off them are all part of the process of peace building. Similarly, my right hon. Friend is right to say that people who want to prevent peace from taking hold may choose to interpret as part of the enemy anybody involved in a humanitarian effort and who is being protected by troops, but that does not mean that we should not ensure that they are afforded the protection that they need. I wish to correct myself on one issue relating to something that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said. The five countries where there are UN peace-building missions have signed, but I cannot be certain that they have ratified. It is difficult to tell whether or not that makes a material difference, but I shall write to him specifically on that point.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Jo SwinsonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I want to follow up on who would be covered by this measure. I welcomed the fact that on Second Reading the Minister’s predecessor said that “we continue to press for a fuller set of protections”.—[Official Report, 1 April 2009; Vol. 490, c. 980.] I say that because the other group of people who are not covered but who do an essential job of rebuilding countries and working in war zones are humanitarian workers for non-governmental organisations. They, too, face dreadful threats—as we saw, 2008 was one of the worst years for aid workers being killed—so will the Minister repeat the assertion that the Government will continue to press for fuller protection?
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- Absolutely. The NGOs do an extraordinary job in many parts of the world, and they do work that could not be done by governmental organisations and agencies. They sometimes have that extra reach into the local community by definition of the fact that they are non-governmental, but if that means that they do not have the protection that they require, it makes it more difficult for them to do that job of work. There is often a judgment to be made on the ground as to how one best advances the process of peace and makes it flourish rather than just lie on stony ground. I wholeheartedly support the point that the hon. Lady makes. I hope that the whole House will support this clause, and I urge hon. Members to do so.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LidingtonConservative
- Quote
- I am happy to offer my support for the clause, which is undoubtedly a welcome addition to the existing protocols and the protections conferred by them. My only difficulty is over what the protocol omits. I agreed with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) when she said that one would hope to see, at some future stage, this form of protection extended to humanitarian workers for NGOs. I am troubled by the absence in the protocol of a clear definition of peace building and by the opt-out that countries retain under subsection (4) in respect of operations “to deliver emergency humanitarian assistance”— on their territories— “in response to natural disaster”. I simply cannot understand the purpose of that opt-out arrangement. I am also concerned that the provisions in the Bill, resting as they do upon the protocol, appear to exclude from the additional protection regional peacekeeping operations and operations that, although authorised by the United Nations Security Council, are under either national or regional control, rather than direct United Nations control. I accept that the protocol is the product of prolonged international negotiation—negotiation that must have been difficult. It is better than no protocol at all, but I hope that the Government will show energy in pursuing further work and trying to ensure that the remaining loopholes are closed.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Jo SwinsonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I support clause 2. Legal protection for UN personnel who are doing essential peace building and emergency humanitarian work is vital and, I would argue, long overdue. Those employees are working on behalf of the whole international community, but sadly they are under increased risk of attack and kidnap. In fact, according to Reuters, in 2008 some 122 people were killed in the course of aid work. That highlights the point that I raised earlier about the possibility of extending the protection further, beyond UN personnel. Sadly, even just in the short time that the Bill has been discussed in the Houses of Parliament, we have seen on the news the requirement for it. On Second Reading, the Gaza conflict was uppermost in people’s minds, as a result of the attack on the UN school. Since then, of course, we have seen dreadful scenes unfold in Sri Lanka, where hospitals have come under fire from artillery shells, and a Red Cross worker is reported to have died. We still do not know the full scale of the damage, death and destruction. Obviously, legal protection alone will not solve the problem. We do not wave a magic wand by agreeing to the protocol, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a deterrent, and it does at least give us the opportunity to act in pursuit of justice where atrocities have been committed. As for applying the measures to the UK, obviously we hope and do not expect UN workers to come under attack in the UK. However, ratification would provide an international lead. It is good news that even since Second Reading two more countries have ratified; I note that Hansard shows that 16 countries had ratified at the time. Hopefully we will make it 19, and that leaves just three more before the measures are brought into force. I urge the Minister and his Department to use all possible diplomacy, as I am sure they will, to encourage other countries to sign and ratify the protocols as soon as possible. With that, I reiterate my support for clause 2. Question put and agreed to. Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 agreed to. The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Chris BryantLabour
- Quote
- I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I am not sure that I can add anything further to the discussions that we have already had this afternoon. We have ranged widely through matters hermeneutical and semiotical, and many other matters. I cannot remember whether it was Aristotle, Seneca or somebody else who said that a small book is always a bad book. The truth is that a small Bill need not be a bad Bill. This is a good piece of legislation, and I am sure that all hon. Members will support it on Third Reading; I am grateful to the officials who have worked hard to make sure of that. I am also grateful to all the previous Ministers who ensured that the issue was brought forward, through diplomatic circles. I hope that the red crystal, and the greater protection that we can afford to peacekeeping and peace-building operations around the world, will significantly enhance the opportunities for peace and justice in this world, and I urge people to support the Bill on Third Reading.
- Time
- 15:58
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LidingtonConservative
- Quote
- This is a welcome piece of legislation, which the Opposition are happy to support. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
- Time
- 15:59
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
