| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for his detailed and interesting answer and for his assurance regarding the constitutional treaty. I look forward to receiving answers to some of the unanswered questions in writing. Therefore, we may return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire moved Amendment No. 6:
"(1A) The bodies to which subsection (1) above applies include, but are not limited to—
(a) ATHENA,
(b) the European Union Satellite Centre, and
(c) the Institute for Security Studies."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. We look forward to hearing more detail from the Government. We would certainly wish to reintroduce Amendment No. 7 on Report unless we have some more detailed information from the Government by then.
I note the vigour with which the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, defended British sovereignty against incursions against it. I hope that when some of my noble friends raise questions about the UK/USA agreement and the astonishing autonomy of US personnel on British territory, on Menwith Hill and elsewhere, we may attract the same degree of support from them. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I would very much agree with the noble Lord. As a matter of fact, when we discussed the then Extradition Bill, it was I who first raised the matter in this House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I thank the noble Lord for that reassurance.
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC43
I note, too—and I am encouraged by a nod from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall—that there have, quite correctly, been a number of changes in how the rights and privileges given to the European Commission have operated over the past 40 years. The process of reform of the Commission and the EU agencies, which many of us support very strongly and which Commissioner Kinnock pushed through, should take the process further. That is something that we want to encourage Her Majesty's Government to do. It is a very important part of accustoming us to the fact that the European Union is in many ways part of our daily lives and ought not to be treated as if it were simply another international organisation, in the same way as the United Nations is an international organisation. Again, in that regard, I find myself disagreeing with some of the tenor of the Government's remarks.
These are all points to which we shall return, but we look forward very much to hearing further on them from the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire moved Amendment No. 8:
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to family members of people who work for inter-governmental organisations. With these three amendments, we are raising the question why one needs to extend to family members privileges under European agencies. I quote from J. Craig Barker's book, The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities—A Necessary Evil? He says:
"Arguably the most controversial provision in the 1961 Convention is one which is fundamental to the whole question of the abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunities, that is the question of who, apart from the diplomatic agent, is entitled to the privileges and immunities laid down in Articles 29 to 36 of the Convention?"
He goes on to give the example of the grandson of the Brazilian ambassador to the United States who murdered someone in a club one night.
That is some distance from where we are, in the European Union, but we should know why members of families who form part of households should be included within the rather limited diplomatic privileges and immunities which are given to staff and officials of European agencies, and of the European Court of Human Rights, although different criteria may well apply to the International Criminal Court. I beg to move.
Baroness Rawlings: We agree with Amendment No. 8. However, what other persons does Her Majesty's Government envisage will need such immunities and privileges awarded to the officers and staff of the body in question? Apart from the Brazilian grandson, would it cover the cleaners, or are they covered by the word "staff" in subsection (3)(a)?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This is perhaps the point at which I should put my second Written Question on
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC44
to the record in these Committee proceedings. My original question was double-barrelled, the first part asking how the Government defined the,
"other persons connected with the body, and members of their families who form part of their households".
To whom do the Government propose to grant immunity under subsection (3)(b)? Secondly, to how many United Kingdom residents do the Government expect such immunity to apply? I refer to people both here and living abroad.
I appreciate that quite a lot of these organisations, though not all of them, are based abroad—if the European Union still counts as abroad. I begin to have my doubts, but let us assume that it does. How many people affected by the provision live here, and how many UK residents living abroad will benefit from it? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was good enough to tell us, both at Second Reading and this evening, that his wife might be covered by the provisions.
What does the Bill mean when it refers to members of a household? I am not joking, but does it actually include their dogs? Supposing a dog belonging to one of these people was to bite someone in the street, would that be covered? I am sure that my wife, who is very keen on our dogs, would insist that they formed part of our household. There could be a serious point here to which it is worth having an answer.
Baroness Crawley: I suppose that the noble Lord's dogs are Euro-sceptics too.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am delighted to inform the noble Baroness that all my dogs are German.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What about mistresses?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My noble friend, if I may refer to him as that, asks about mistresses. Of course, that is something about which I know very little. However, it should seriously be included in the question. What do we mean by these provisions?
Lord Triesman: The amendment proposes the deletion of the last line of subsection (3), which provides that the persons on whom privileges and immunities may be conferred under subsection (2)(c) include family members of officers and staff and other persons connected with EU bodies. I will go into further detail in specific response to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
If the amendment were agreed, it would not be possible to confer privileges and immunities on family members and persons connected with EU bodies. I say immediately that I will not venture into answering any questions about household pets. I know from bitter experience that the moment one starts talking about people's household pets—few of whom can be brought to trial or claim any immunities or privileges in that sense—one gets into trouble because of the other sorts of household pets one fails to mention which apparently one fails to hold in such high esteem.
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC45
Conferral of privileges and immunities on family members of officials and staff of EU bodies will in some cases be necessary to ensure that the work of the officials is not undermined. If we make the amendment proposed, the UK will not be able to confer privileges and immunities on family members, as noble Lords have pointed out. That could result in the UK not being able to fulfil its EU obligations. It is therefore important that legislative provision is made for the possibility—which I stress—of conferring such privileges and immunities.
Furthermore, any secondary legislation conferring privileges and immunities on family members under this clause will be subject to affirmative resolution and will therefore be debated in both Houses. That would give noble Lords a further opportunity to criticise or at least scrutinise the privileges and immunities being conferred.
I understand the point made about affirmative resolution, because it faces everyone with the prospect of turning down the whole of the proposal rather than distinct parts of it, but it is a serious opportunity taken in the House, as many noble Lords will have observed for themselves, to deal with issues that are regarded as highly problematic and to deal harshly with the whole of a piece of secondary legislation should it be manifestly absurd.
The answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, covers the sorts of people in general who will come under the umbrella of this provision, if it is decided to extend privileges and immunities to them. Clause 5(3)(b) will cover, among others, persons employed by or serving under the body as experts or as persons engaged on missions for the body, representatives to the body, representatives on or members of any subordinate body or sub-committee, family members of those persons, and family members of officers or staff of the body.
As ATHENA, the European Union Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies are all based outside the United Kingdom, it is expected that few if any UK residents connected with those bodies would enjoy the immunities. However, I will not go through the point that I made earlier about why bodies are covered even if they are not anticipated to work in the United Kingdom in the near future. The International Organisations Bill is a small technical Bill in that respect. It enables the Government to meet outstanding international commitments to confer legal capability and privileges and immunities on a number of international organisations and bodies and on certain categories of individuals connected with them. The Bill is clear about that.
Clause 5 deals with the bodies established under the Treaty on European Union. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all the categories of persons that will fall within Clause 5(3)(b). The purpose of the clause is to ensure that we can confer privileges and immunities on all categories of persons that we need to, pursuant to EU Council decisions or other measures. The question about whether it was likely that the measure could be extended within the
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC46
terms of the definitions that I have provided in Grand Committee today was fairly put. For example, could the cleaners or personal staff working for people in those bodies be included? The answer is no—there could be no functional justification for that. I go back to my original point on the root law on the matter, which was about the functions having to be specifically related to the outcomes that we are discussing.
I do not believe that the privileges and immunities could be extended in a way that everyone would find not only undesirable, but thoroughly risible. That is a belief on which I am advised, rather than simply being a personal belief. In that light, I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have answered the fundamental questions put to me today and that the amendment can be withdrawn.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |