Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel

My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the Minister for moving the Second Reading of this short Bill, at a sadly appropriate time. The Bill has two objectives: to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, as he has explained, and to amend the UN Personnel Act 1997. The first aim marks a new stage in the use and application of protective and distinctive emblems to cover the work of those who are bringing care and relief to victims of battle, prisoners of war and people everywhere, including civilians, who are in crisis—a familiar scene that we have seen a thousand times in reality or on television screens. It does so by introducing and legalising this new additional emblem to the existing red cross and red crescent, to be called the ““red crystal””, which is intended to be both protective and indicative, marked on vehicles and on the armbands and uniforms of personnel in the field. It also extends the penalties for misuse or abuse of this symbol and, as I understand it—I hope I have got this right—of the existing symbols as well. It is not often that one handles a Bill that has a picture in it. It is not, alas, in the colour that it ought to be, but it is an unusual departure from the grim, ordinary pattern of legislative documents placed before us. The second aim, as the Minister explained, is to strengthen the safety of the conditions surrounding UN and associated personnel by extending their legal protection against attack, assault and danger to a wider range of operations. Both aims are commendable, and both are sadly relevant to the modern world and to events current even while we speak. The bravery of those who work under these emblems of neutrality and mercy, and of UN personnel in battle zones, cannot be exaggerated. It is easy to talk about, but it is immeasurable and shows enormous courage. That applies also to aid workers, whose position we discussed earlier in your Lordships' House when my noble friend Lady Rawlings raised an important Question on that issue We strongly support the aims, but I have a number of questions for the Minister on which I hope he will have a chance to comment when he winds up this short debate. Although the expansion of symbols from the simple red cross to the red crescent comes down to us from the 19th century—indeed, at one stage, there was even a red lion and sun for the Persians and Iranians, and a red flame for the Thailanders—and arises from all manner of religious and ethnic concerns, it is a sad fact that the original red cross was never intended to be a religious symbol; it was simply the reversal of the Swiss flag, which is a white cross on a red background, and an emblem of that very precious and nowadays abused concept of true neutrality. That is all long ago, and it is no use crying over spilt milk, but it is where we have got to today. If the cross and crescent have served so well, what is the main reasoning behind adding the new symbol? Are we being driven by the needs of a very small number of countries? Which countries want something different and are unable to accept either the cross or the crescent? The spirit behind these symbols is and must be complete and utter neutrality. Is that essential quality in any way weakened or diluted by the arrival of the third symbol? We know about the Israeli problem, which the Minister has mentioned, and we know the Israeli preference for the Star of David. The proposition seems to be that, as they are now admitted to the international federation, they can combine the Star of David with the red crystal logo wrapped around it. Is that correct, and does it provide exactly the same protection under international law as the cross and the crescent? Who exactly decides who can use the new symbol and where? I think that there is an answer, but I would like to hear it from the Minister. Will the combination emblems, be it the logo of the crystal with either the cross, the crescent or the Star of David, be fully operative for both indicative and protective purposes in all cases? How will the new emblem affect the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies or the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement? Will ““crystal”” come into any of their titles in the future? Will there be a new international red crystal organisation? I turn to the aspect of the Bill that concerns UN personnel. Again, I have a few questions. Does the UN protocol cover all bodies; for example, the UN refugee centre in Gaza? There have been comments about the scope of the previous personnel convention, and suggestions that it did not give the full cover required. The Minister, with his considerable experience at the UN, is an expert in this field and will be able to tell us about that. Secondly, how many states are party to the convention on the safety of UN personnel, and how many states will be party to the enhancement and extension of it? Thirdly, the protocol now extends to UN personnel working in more clearly defined conditions of exceptional risk. The problem led to understandable complaints from Kofi Annan and others that the cover was not good enough. Now that it extends beyond the narrower concept of peacekeeping and humanitarian work, how many of the current UN operations will have the protection of this convention? There are many such operations in this world at the moment—too many, as we know to our cost. That completes my questions on a Bill that all reasonable people will welcome. We remain supportive of this endeavour and of the people who have shaped it. It has been created and established after many delays and debates, and we hope that it will bring more humanity to a dark and violent world.