Draft International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2005

Column Number: 1

Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman:

Mrs. Joan Humble

†Allen, Mr. Graham (Nottingham, North) (Lab)
†Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)
Browne, Mr. Jeremy (Taunton) (LD)
Clappison, Mr. James (Hertsmere) (Con)
†Clegg, Mr. Nick (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
†Cruddas, Jon (Dagenham) (Lab)
Hogg, Mr. Douglas (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
†Johnson, Ms Diana R. (Kingston upon Hull, North) (Lab)
†McGovern, Mr. Jim (Dundee, West) (Lab)
McIntosh, Miss Anne (Vale of York) (Con)
†Owen, Albert (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
†Pearson, Ian (Minister for Trade)
†Selous, Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con)
†Sheridan, Jim (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)
Streeter, Mr. Gary (South-West Devon) (Con)
Stringer, Graham (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab)
†Stuart, Ms Gisela (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Susan Griffiths, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Column Number: 3

Tuesday 6 December 2005

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Draft International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2005

10.30 am

The Minister for Trade (Ian Pearson): I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2005.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble.

A copy of the draft order was laid before the House on 23 November. It will confer privileges and immunities, in accordance with the agreement on the privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court, Cm. 5839, on representatives of states participating in the assembly of states parties to the statute of the International Criminal Court and its subsidiary organs, and on representatives of states and intergovernmental organisations invited to assembly meetings.

The International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004 gave effect to the majority of the obligations that flow from the agreement on the privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court. A provision to implement article 13 of the agreement, however, could not be included in the 2004 order as the necessary legal powers were not available at that time. The International Organisations Act 2005, which came into effect on 7 June, amended schedule 1 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001. The amendment provided the power to confer privileges and immunities on persons attending meetings of the assembly of states parties to the Rome statute and its subsidiary organisations, as required by article 13 of the agreement.

The Hague-based International Criminal Court was established by the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998, in July 2002, and inaugurated in March 2003. The ICC is the world’s first permanent court with the power to try serious international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The court is now operational, and has begun investigations of events in northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Darfur in Sudan. The UK is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court and it was one of the first states to sign the agreement, on 10 September 2002, immediately following its adoption by the first assembly of states parties to the Rome statute. The order will allow the UK to give full effect to article 13 of the 2002 agreement on the privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court.

Column Number: 4

I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European convention on human rights, and I hope that it will receive the full support of the Committee.

10.33 am

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs. Humble. I served with you throughout the last Parliament in a Select Committee, and I seem to have been under your chairmanship a number of times in the past few weeks.

The order is uncontroversial, as the Minister said. In the past few weeks, a number of similar orders have been considered in relation to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Forest Institute that deal with essentially the same issues.

Section 2.3 of the explanatory memorandum mentions “representatives of States Parties”, which are distinct from representatives of states. For clarification, will the Minister tell us the difference between those terms, and explain which UK-based international organisations would also be covered by section 2.3(iii)?

Article 3 of the order lists the immunities to which International Criminal Court representatives are entitled. The first applies to personal arrest or detention. Will the Minister say whether the order covers minor offences such as parking offences? He will be aware that there is sometimes considerable irritation in our own city of London and elsewhere when members of the diplomatic community from overseas abuse parking procedures in our capital city. That rightly causes resentment. Does the order cover such matters, and if so, what mechanism will ensure that British citizens do not abuse the hospitality of our good friends the Dutch, given that the International Criminal Court has its headquarters in The Hague? Other than that, the Opposition support the order fully and have no serious concerns.

10.35 am

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): I have just a couple of points to raise with the Minister. First, does the order in any way relate to the United States, because we know that it has a strange or unique view about the International Criminal Court? Can the Minister say anything about our ally’s view on the Court in relation to these proposals?

Secondly, the International Criminal Court continues to meet in The Hague. Do the immunities and privileges cited in the order extend to the possibility of its meeting outside The Hague, including in the UK? Is that a possible way forward to ensure that our American allies feel that they are more in tune with the purposes of the Court than they do currently? Having national jurisdictions operating under the auspices of the Court might make it a more collective family. There is a big policy issue: had we had such mechanisms in the past, and a more effective global network, we might have been able to deal even with

Column Number: 5

conflicts as large as the Iraq conflict within a proper legal context, rather than by taking unilateral action, which can fall foul of the ICC.

10.37 am

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): The order is uncontroversial, as has been said. I read article 3 with growing envy—no doubt everyone else did as well—at the wonderful list of exemptions and immunities that are granted to those who work at the ICC.

I had two questions, but one has already been covered in respect of the application of the exemptions and privileges to parking offences in The Hague and elsewhere in the Netherlands. My other question is as follows: given that the order is an amendment of the terms of the International Organisations Act 2005, to what degree are these exemptions, privileges and benefits the same as those granted in similar international organisations? Is there now a uniform template for the diplomatic and other privileges enjoyed by staff in international organisations? Are the privileges in the order therefore just a replica of those found in similar organisations?

10.38 am

Ian Pearson: I shall try to reply to the contributions that have been made. First, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) asked me about state parties or states. Let me try to explain: state parties are states that have ratified the Rome statute. That is the state parties definition with which we are working. For example, the UK has ratified the Rome statute, and a person attending the state parties meeting, which is the management meeting of the ICC, would enjoy the immunities.

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire also raised the issue of parking offences, which are civil rather than criminal offences. I am not aware that that is an issue for the International Criminal Court with regard to The Hague or anywhere else. The general principle of diplomatic immunity is that it is granted to appropriate persons, but the right to immunity can be waived where criminal actions are undertaken. That applies fairly generally to diplomatic immunity status.

I believe that that answers the question put by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg). What we are doing here with regard to the states parties to the International Criminal Court is very similar to what we were doing last week with the European Forest Institute and the European Court of Human Rights. Similar practices are applied with respect to international organisations, and a similar approach is employed by all member states.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) asked me a direct question about whether any of what we are discussing relates to the United States. Clearly, the United States is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. The

Column Number: 6

measure applies to the United States only in the sense that representatives of states and intergovernmental organisations may be invited to assembly meetings. If a representative from the United States were invited to attend the assembly of states parties, that person would enjoy the immunities and privileges in the order. Similarly, if someone were to attend from another country that is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, they would enjoy the same immunity.

Mr. Allen: I think that at the end of his sentence my hon. Friend answered the question that I intended to ask, which was whether those who do not currently enjoy full status can nevertheless be invited to such gatherings, because of associate status.

Ian Pearson: It will be up to the assembly of states parties to determine whom it wants to invite to its meetings, but it may want to extend invitations in order to build confidence in what is a relatively new international organisation.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the position of the United States with regard to the International Criminal Court. I have talked about that before, and he will know that the United States has worries about the International Criminal Court—in particular that there may be politically motivated prosecution of US military personnel engaged in peacekeeping activities. We understand those concerns, but we do not share them, and we are confident that the ICC statute provides sufficient preventive safeguards. I hope that, as the ICC builds up a track record, the United States will come to realise that there is not a problem, and that it will then have confidence to decide that it wants to participate.

Mr. Allen: I have one other point, about trials taking place other than in The Hague. Will the Minister comment on that, or drop me a note at some convenient time?

Ian Pearson: The order refers only to the assembly of states parties and the statute of the International Criminal Court. As I have said, the assembly is really a management body. It can meet in the The Hague, but it can also meet in New York. My understanding is that the normal practice for the International Criminal Court would probably be to hold trials in The Hague, but I do not rule out the possibility that it may decide that it wants to hold trials in other places. We are still in relatively new territory. The International Criminal Court has only just issued its first arrests, and nobody has yet been brought to trial. The matter is one for the future, and we are happy to take on board my hon. Friend’s comments and to look at things again in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2005.

Committee rose at sixteen minutes to Eleven o’clock.



©Parliamentary copyright 2005	Prepared 8 December 2005