| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wish to press the Minister on a question that I put to her earlier in my remarks. We have clarified what happened to my Written Questions, but I am not sure that she answered my query as to what happened to the questions posed by my noble friend—if I may refer to her as such—Lady Rawlings, in her intervention at Second Reading, and whether they have been answered in correspondence. I ask that because at
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC17
the end of the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, at Second Reading, she said:
"The noble Baroness raised a number of other questions. I shall go through them very carefully and I hope to give her satisfaction in the answer I provide".—[Official Report, 16/12/04; col. 1478.]
It would be helpful to know whether those answers have been given.
Baroness Crawley: I thank Members of the Committee for that debate. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, answers to the remaining questions that were not dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in our Second Reading in December, will be sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, very shortly. I hope that through the process of today's Committee stage we can answer some of them anyway. But there will be some outstanding written replies for the noble Baroness.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I trust that the Government then agree that it is a pity that those replies are not already with us to inform our proceedings today.
Baroness Crawley: We certainly did not want to be discourteous to the noble Baroness. I hope that she will accept that we shall certainly send her the replies very shortly.
I shall add another few numbers to the figures on the percentage of British citizens in the Commonwealth Secretariat. That point was originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and taken forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. My note tells me that at the last count, 79 of approximately 270 Commonwealth Secretariat staff were British. That is less than 30 per cent.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: And residents?
Baroness Crawley: Well, those are the numbers that I have. I am sure that we can come back to that matter if more clarity is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, raised the issue of the compatibility of the immunity provision with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also raised that matter at Second Reading. The issue of the compatibility of the conferral of immunity on international organisations with the European Convention on Human Rights has been considered in the past by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The court has held, in a number of cases, that the right of access to a court under Article 6 of the convention is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, providing that they pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate.
The Court in Strasbourg has accepted that conferring immunity from jurisdiction on international organisations is a legitimate aim, as it is an important means of ensuring that the proper functioning of such organisations continues free from unilateral interference by individual governments. It is also relevant to consider whether there is a reasonable alternative means by which individuals may pursue claims against the organisation. Although the noble Baroness and myself have a different opinion on the matter, I would say that with the
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC18
Commonwealth Secretariat, as is the case with many international organisations, there is an internal dispute resolution mechanism in place to hear such claims.
Since the creation of CSAT in 1995, a number of changes have been made to its statute. It is proposed that the revised version of the CSAT statute will be attached to the revised agreed memorandum of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Any further changes to the statute in future will be subject to the agreement of Commonwealth governments.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised the issue of the Joint Committee of Human Rights reporting on the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, also raised the issue in this debate. The JCHR is aware of the Bill and has informed us that it will report on it at the end of this month.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised issues about whether the staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat were consulted on the Bill. It is my understanding that consultation between the Government and the management of the secretariat has been going on for a number of years. The management welcome this Bill, and it is up to the management to ensure that consultation is then made between themselves and their staff. It is a matter for the Government to consult with management and then for management to consult with their staff.
Finally, why do we need to confer privileges and immunities on any of these organisations and bodies, which is the underlying thrust of some of the arguments, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his unholy alliance with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire? Privileges and immunities are conferred on organisations and bodies to ensure that they are able to carry out their functions without being impeded. That is the simple basis of this Bill. The general policy of Her Majesty's Government, which goes back to the 1980s, is that privileges and immunities should be granted primarily on the basis of functional need.
The scope of the privileges and immunities conferred and the organisations and bodies on which they are conferred are determined by the UK's international obligations, as we have discussed. As regards the organisations and bodies covered by the Bill, as I have said already we have signed international agreements committing us to confer privileges and immunities on them. A number of those agreements are long-standing, for example, those relating to the OSCE, ECHR and ICLOS were signed in 1993, 1996 and 1997 respectively. Further delay in fully implementing those agreements could be interpreted as a lack of commitment by the UK to those organisations. We would certainly not want that impression to go abroad.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Minister stated that she did not know whether the staff had been consulted, and that the Government's duty was to consult with the management. The management board is of course
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC19
appointed by the Secretary-General, so there is a difficulty there. Surely the Government have a duty to find out whether management have taken proper consultation with the people involved? That is modern industrial relations practice. If the management did not consult with employees who would be affected, they are guilty of bad management. It simply is not good enough. I worked in the electricity supply industry, and I know a little about negotiating with management and how difficult it is to get management to listen to what people who work on the ground have to say. We had a modern system in which management were obliged to consult with workers. It seems to me that if the Government went willy-nilly along with the decision of management and did not ask whether this was acceptable to the staff involved, they were failing in their duty.
The noble Lord shakes his head, but he is a member of the Labour party. I would have thought that he would understand what I am saying about the need to consult with employees who are having their conditions of service changed. In industry there would be strikes and industrial action if you attempted to change, without consultation and negotiation, a privilege or a term of service that had been enjoyed for a long period of time, certainly since 1966. You cannot and should not do so. So this really is an important point. Clearly, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, secretariat staff are offended by the way in which they have been treated. I would have hoped that the Government would take some cognizance of that.
I do not know whether I missed it, but did the Minister answer the question about what would happen if Parliament, through the House of Lords—because this is a House of Lords Bill—refused to pass this Bill?
Baroness Crawley: I apologise that I did not answer before. If this Bill failed to go through both Houses there would be status quo; that would be the position. I simply repeat what I have said before about our years of consulting with management at the Commonwealth Secretariat on this Bill. We could talk for hours about this, but I do not believe that it is the role of the Government to go through staff trade unions in that consultation; that is the role of management. We would quite rightly get short shrift from trade unions if we started interfering.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 4:
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |