Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Touhig and Baroness Northover
Lord Touhig (Lab)
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.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am sorry that I could not be here for Second Reading. I was in Angola, itself a country devastated in the recent past by conflict. However, as a former historian—in a much earlier life—at University College London, and more recently as a DfID Minister, I am delighted to see the Bill coming forward.
As we have heard, Amendment 7 applies the provisions of the Act to,
“a person subject to UK service jurisdiction serving under the military command of the armed forces of another country”,
and Amendment 8 applies the Act to private military contractors. These amendments appear to show a gap in the provisions of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, laid out, so I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that have just been made.
Clause 6 sets out that those “guilty of an offence” or ancillary offence under the Bill are,
“liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 30 years”.
This is the maximum term of imprisonment. We are pleased that there is not a minimum mandatory term set out in the Bill, as we prefer the specification of maximum rather than minimum terms. Nevertheless, what range of sentences does the Minister anticipate would be employed under the Bill? What discussions have the Government had with the Sentencing Council and when do they anticipate that the council will begin consulting on the range of offences in the Bill?
Children and Families Bill
Debate between Lord Touhig and Baroness Northover(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Earl for his comments—and for his thanks to me. Again, we are all very concerned, in this and other areas, that the transition of a child becoming a young person and into adulthood is supported as effectively as possible, especially for the more vulnerable of our young people. Again, I will make sure that the point the noble Earl made is fed in. It would help if he looked at the draft code of practice to see whether he feels reassured by that.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I am sorry but I missed a little of what the noble Baroness said in response to me. Was the reference she made to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about something in the Care Bill?
Baroness Northover
Yes. As I listened to the noble Lord, it struck me that some of the concerns he had would be addressed by the way that the care of a particular individual moving from one area to another should be looked after. He highlighted cases of students who wished to move from home to study at particular universities—just like all other young people who had those ambitions—but their personal situation stood in their way. We clearly need to ensure that that is not the case. The Care Bill should help in that regard because of the responsibilities there in terms of social care, outside the responsibilities I also mentioned in terms of education support.
Lord Touhig
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I work quite closely on these matters.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I should like to say a few words about Amendment 109. I welcome Clause 30(3) because it outlines the provision to assist young people in preparation for adulthood. This preparation includes, among other things, assistance in finding employment. This is welcome but I am not sure that it goes far enough, and that is why I think that Amendment 109 would take us that step further.
The amendment would help to prepare young people to stay in work or to access any benefits that they need or are entitled to. The inclusion would also form part of a genuinely supported transition to adulthood. In addition to finding employment, many skills are involved in retaining it. Support in this area would surely aid young people in making the proper transition that the clause commendably strives to achieve. Similarly, in difficult economic times, with high youth unemployment, it is important that young people are aware of the benefits support they can get in order to progress into employment.
In the other place, the Minister referred to the code of practice. He said that,
“the local offer must include information about, for example, job coaches, who can support people who are already in employment, supported internships, apprenticeships, traineeships and support from employment agencies”.
He continued:
“The code also says that local authorities should provide some signposting about where young people can obtain advice and information about the financial support they can have not only when they seek employment, but after they are employed”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children and Families Bill Committee, 21/3/13; col. 435.]
Clearly, Ministers are aware of the vital importance of aiding young people to retain employment and access the benefits support that they need at appropriate times. This is necessary to ensure positive outcomes and real transitions for young people into adulthood.
In the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, sent to noble Lords following the Second Reading, he said:
“Local authorities should ensure that early transition planning is in place for all young people with an Education, Health and Care Plan, focusing on positive outcomes and how to achieve them … When a young person is anticipated to be leaving education within two years, reviews of EHC Plans must plan for phased transition into the key life outcomes listed, with a greater emphasis on pathways to independent living, higher education and paid employment”.
These statements from Ministers are most welcome but remain a little vague. More specific skills training and support could be set out in the Bill, thereby placing within the legislation a real commitment properly to prepare young people for adulthood. That would be making considerable progress.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek in different ways to put more detailed information in the Bill regarding the local offer. Let me deal with the issues that noble Lords have raised.
Amendment 103 of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, seeks to ensure that the local offer includes specialist provision made in the independent sector, in particular that made by institutions covered by Clause 41. I thank the noble Baroness for acknowledging that this issue is in fact covered in the draft code of practice. I think she said that.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Touhig and Baroness Northover(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
Would I be right in thinking that, without any form of means test for the additional fine, it could be greater than the original fine?
Baroness Northover
In theory, I suppose that that could be the case. The important issue here is that the offender stays closely in touch with the fines officer. If an offender has a very small fine decided because of their circumstances, ways to pay that should be sorted out and the offender assisted in that regard. Only a very small fine would be overtaken by the cost of pursuing it, one would imagine. As I said, it is extremely important for the offender and the fines officer to work through the implications of the decision taken by the court.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I must say that I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response. I entirely agree—I said it at Second Reading and I have said it today—that people should be responsible for paying the debts that are due. If they are fined for an offence, they should be responsible for paying those debts. However, as the Minister said, people often live chaotic lifestyles. We think that it is right that the guidelines of a magistrates’ court make it clear that, although the fine should provide a degree of hardship, it should not leave people with an income on which they cannot survive. Surely we should protect children and the person’s ability to pay for food and housing. Those are three basic things: children, food and housing.
Baroness Northover
I remind the noble Lord that I said that, if offenders find themselves in the circumstances that he describes, they can go back to the court and the administration cost, too, can be varied or set aside. It is not as cast-iron or concrete as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Touhig
I apologise. I accept the point that the noble Baroness made in her earlier response. The point I seek to make is that if we think that the guidelines to the magistrates should take account of those elements, surely it is right that any additional fine should take account of those elements. At the end of the day, because of the lifestyles of some people, some fines will never be paid. That is wrong, but they will not. The taxpayer will end up paying more if children are not properly cared for. Social services will be involved. Someone will lose a house and have to go into emergency accommodation. The Government are storing up a problem here which could be avoided by simply saying, yes, if a form of means testing is used to determine the initial fine, any additional fine should have the same application.
I regret that the Government do not see it that way. There is clearly much work that we must do as missionaries to persuade the Government, before the Bill passes, of the error of their ways. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but give notice that I shall come back to it at a later stage.