| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Roper: The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, made it clear that this measure in no way provides any exemption to the members of the governments of any of the OSCE member states. The only people to whom it applies would be members of the OSCE staff coming to this country. Therefore, I feel that part of the argument that was made probably falls.
However, I want to pursue two different points. First, at the recent meeting of the OSCE in Sofia there was a great deal of discussion of the inter-relationship that now exists regarding the OSCE and the adapted CFE treaty. Therefore, I wonder whether, when people come to this country to carry out inspections under the CFE treaty, they are treated as covered by the OSCE. I had an idea that some time ago Parliament passed an exemption which already gave them diplomatic status. Therefore, I wonder whether, in considering this matter, we are not giving them diplomatic status when they come to this country.
Secondly, the Minister, in outlining the important work of the OSCE, referred to its work regarding election observation. Interestingly, one of the places in which the OSCE carried out election observation last year was the United States. That shows that it is not only in former countries of the Soviet Union that the OSCE carries out observations when there are concerns about the way in which elections are being conducted.
If the Government were to pursue their interest in having all-postal votes in elections of one kind or another, as we have seen introduced, there might be controversy about the validity of that as a system. In those circumstances the OSCE might choose to send election observers to the United Kingdom to see how far an all-postal voting system corresponded with the objectives of democracy favoured by the OSCE. If a mission of electoral observers were to be sent to the United Kingdom, I wonder whether our adoption of this clause would give them appropriate immunity during their visit.
Lord Triesman: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, was right in his comment about the nature of immunity. If I am wrong about that, I shall certainly write to him to correct the point.
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC27
As regards the second point that he made regarding the electoral observations that have taken place, he is entirely correct to say that a delegation went to the United States. I suppose that in the context of the history of "hanging chads" and other things there was always a possibility that that would occur. I would like to think that if the organisation considered it right to send observers to observe any aspect of an election in the United Kingdom, we would consider that our system was robust and capable of being looked at by others, and that we would have no fear of anyone inspecting it. I believe that the people concerned would be bound to be covered by the relevant immunities. I have heard a whisper in the ether from the officials behind me that will not find its way into Hansard unless I say it. In case the Committee did not hear that comment, the organisation did send an election team. I shall be very inquisitive to find out what it had to say.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, had to say. What he said really reduced the whole thing to absurdity because he said that the relevant people hardly ever come and that there have been about 10 overnight stays in the past 12 months. I think that was the sort of thing he was saying. If that is so, why on earth do we want this clause in the Bill? If it is so unimportant, why are we making special provision? I refer to the other question I should like to ask and to which I should like to know the answer, although the noble Lord may not be able to give it at the moment. When the OSCE was recently present in the Ukraine supervising the elections there, did its members have diplomatic immunity in that country? I wonder whether the noble Lord knows the answer to that. If they did not have diplomatic immunity, how did that obstruct in any way—or did it obstruct in any way?—the job they had to do there? If it did not obstruct in any way the job they had to do in the Ukraine, why on earth would they need immunity in this country, which, of course, is a democratic country and freer than the Ukraine, to do the same sort of job?
Lord Triesman: I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, thinks that the argument is absurd. A theme may have run through our debate so far that needs a tiny bit of elaboration, but I would hope not a lot. When we enter into international treaties and international bodies are set up under those treaties, all those who sign up to the treaties become, if you like, members of a club obligated by the terms of the relevant treaty. They are obligated to ensure that the organisations set up under the terms of that treaty are dealt with in an even-handed way in every country that is a party to that treaty.
Some of the organisations that are set up will take residence in the United Kingdom. In fact, we have been extremely successful as a nation—I am proud of the fact—in that we have attracted a number of those organisations which believe that it is beneficial to be based in the United Kingdom and to conduct their international work from here. Others, by definition, will be set up elsewhere. However, they will all be
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC28
treated the same way by the nature of the international obligation which all signatories to the treaty, in joining the club that that treaty represents, have given their undertakings toward. I suspect that was not a sentence with proper syntax but I hope that all Members of the Committee will none the less follow it. That is why, even if the relevant people do not come here other than for occasional visits, I should have thought that our obligations are wholly and manifestly clear.
On the point about whether there was diplomatic immunity for the relevant people in the Ukraine, the answer is yes.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: That is all very well for the members of this cosy club who clearly do very well out of it. As the noble Lord explained, these treaties and agreements are reached by governments, by the executives. However, what the Government are now asking us to do as Parliament is to ratify these arrangements. It is in this process that Parliament has the chance to disagree with what the executive has done on its behalf.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: On a point of clarification, as regards the noble Lord's question about the OSCE mission monitoring the elections in the Ukraine having diplomatic immunity, as we understand it, monitoring missions do not get diplomatic immunity as expressed in the general meaning of that word. Will the Minister clarify that point? It would be surprising if members of that mission had had diplomatic immunity.
Lord Triesman: I am advised that immunity covered by international arrangements was provided. I shall check the precise origin of the basis for that, but that is what I am advised. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to clarify that basis.
Clause 5 [Bodies established under Treaty on European Union]:
Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 5:
The noble Baroness said: I stand to speak to Amendment No. 5 in my name. I must say that I was tempted too to put down a Motion that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
I would first of all like to reiterate a request I made at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, kindly provided us with some examples of the bodies that will be covered by this clause in relation to bodies set up under Title V and Title VI of the Maastricht Treaty. I feel I speak for the Committee when I say that a full list—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch earlier this afternoon—of all the organisations that will be covered in this way would be most useful. Will it, for example, cover Europol investigators? Will the Minister put a copy in the Library before the next stage of the Bill? I rather agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the European Union has great influence in our daily lives, so we should consider carefully how far the privileges and immunities reach within its
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC29
bodies, also, how accountable these bodies are themselves in adhering to the remit of regulations that European Union member countries are subject to.
The amendment itself removes the ability of the section to apply to the Maastricht Treaty,
This, I understand, would allow it to apply only to bodies already covered by the treaty as it stood in 1992. The aim once again is to ask the Government in more detail about issues raised the last time we debated this Bill. I welcomed the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that,
"this Bill has got nothing to do with the . . . constitutional".—[Official Report, 16/12/04; col. 1478.]
treaty. I would like to ask for a more exacting assurance that the words,
will not allow the Government to act in anticipation of the decision of Parliament on the European Union Constitutional Treaty, and particularly any new bodies that may flow from that. If this text would enable privileges and immunities to be awarded to bodies not yet formally agreed to until a constitution is agreed and ratified, does the Minister promise that the Government will not use this power until such a situation has been reached?
At Second Reading the Minister explained the principle that privileges and immunities should be granted only on the basis of functional need, and that each time a new European Union body is proposed the Government take a view on whether that body needs legal capacity and/or privileges and immunities. Will the Minister explain the process by which that view is made? Is there a set of criteria that must be met? Do the Government consult on these decisions, and, if so, with whom?
I would also like to discuss further the issue of legal personality and the points that I previously raised. As I said, I wish to seek further clarification about the legal basis for conferring the privileges and immunities of the European Communities on the European Union bodies when the European Union itself does not have a legal personality—something that I hasten to add that we on these Benches would not support. The noble Baroness was unable to tell me at Second Reading whether the Government had responded to questions put to them along those lines by the committee dealing with European security. If they have, will the Minister make copies available to Members of this Committee for the future? If they have not, when might they respond, especially in the light of the orders that were agreed on 9 December 2004?
The issue of legal basis is one that we should consider with great care. Indeed, it is one that should have been addressed when we originally signed up to these bodies. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |