| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not sure that I heard the noble Lord answer the second part of my question, which was about how many United Kingdom residents the Government expect the immunity to apply to. That includes those living both here and abroad. Can the Government hazard a guess at that?
Lord Triesman: I apologise; I did not answer that. I will and must answer it, but I shall do so in writing. Rather than hazarding a guess, I should like to be precise about it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We might wish to reintroduce Amendment No. 8 on Report, because I am not entirely convinced by the argument. I again stress that we are not where we were in 1965. In 1965, going to France from Britain was an expedition, and one spent a good deal of time going through customs on both sides of the English Channel and showing one's passport to people who quite regularly wished to inspect all its pages. I regret that the United Kingdom has not yet become a full member of Schengen but I wave my passport at someone who, even under current circumstances, rarely looks at the inside as I come through on a regular basis, and I do not feel that I am going to a foreign country in quite the same way.
Much has changed. Household pets travel rather more easily across Europe now than they did a few years ago; that is also something in which the world is becoming a little different. I was one of those who campaigned hard to have the European Police College come to Britain, and I am very glad that it has done. Now that it is here and will train lots of people over the next few years, however, I am not sure that it quite needs exceptional status. Again, the issue is one of developing complexity.
I am not entirely clear what privileges need to go to the European school in Culham, or elsewhere. I am certainly not persuaded that family members need particular privileges. Family members of foreign banks operating in London do not need particular privileges. Why do people who work for European agencies operating in Britain need them? Again, we recognise entirely that Britain alone cannot change regulations on the matter. I was extremely happy to hear that the European Commission was itself beginning to conduct a review of it. We therefore want
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC47
to encourage Her Majesty's Government to put it in the context of Commission reform and the developing policy of the European Union, and to encourage other governments to take on board that we should not automatically apply old, established rules—most of which were negotiated before we were born, and quite a lot of them before we started our careers—into the foreseeable future. My party regards that matter as a necessary response to the increasing interdependence within which we live.
Lord Triesman: I want to repeat one point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It ought to be said, otherwise misapprehensions about the fundamental nature of the questions in this brief debate will persist. The United Kingdom Government have made a number of undertakings under the current treaties to which we are party. This legislation tries to make good the promises that we have made. There is common ground between us on that. There seems to be a very persuasive argument to suggest further review, and that a good deal would be learnt about the development of international relations and international organisations in such a further review, including within Europe. However, it does not resolve our immediate problem, which the Bill is intended to address. That is a very much more limited problem, and I hope that I have set it out as straightforwardly as I can.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Indeed you have made it clear. I was merely concerned to extract from the Government a commitment that such a review will be conducted, and that Her Majesty's Government will not only conduct a review so far as Britain is concerned, but will commit themselves to taking this issue further multilaterally within the European Union, which is the issue with which we are most directly concerned here.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I could put on record once again what I said earlier. Of course I accept the system as outlined by the Minister, but I remind him that the people of this country elect and dismiss Members of Parliament about once every four or five years, and the Government are formed of a majority of elected MPs. Only 60 per cent of the electorate now bother to vote in general elections, and modern governments are supported by only some 40 per cent of those who do vote, or about 24 per cent of the electorate. The percentage of those who vote is declining, and trust in our system of parliamentary democracy is eroding steadily. When one sees a Bill such as this, which has been agreed in secret in the Council of Ministers—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Yes, at least as far as the European aspect is concerned, the agreements in the Council are reached in secret. When Parliament, for which the people vote, elect and dismiss, is asked to rubber stamp infringements of this kind on our ancient liberties, I am not surprised that trust in our system of parliamentary democracy is eroding so steadily.
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC48
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [International Criminal Court]:
Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 9:
The noble Baroness said: This amendment aims to question how far the immunities and privileges provided to the International Criminal Court judges should extend to members of their family who form part of their households, along the same lines as we have been discussing.
I welcome the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, at Second Reading, that the terminology in the Bill would cover civil partners, as recently enacted. I recognise too the need to make sure that judges' work cannot be undermined by threats against close members of their families. This rings true with Article 26 of the founding document of the International Criminal Court, which states that privileges and immunities are,
"granted in the interests of the good administration of justice and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves".
Article 15(3) requires immunities for family members in the household only if the judge is residing in the country concerned. Out of interest, how many International Criminal Court judges are currently residing in this country?
The Explanatory Notes seem to envisage the refunding of VAT and other taxation incurred on visits. Will this happen only if a family member is travelling with the judge, or would they be able to claim it on their own independent travel? For example, would the wife of a judge be able to claim back all the VAT on a Christmas shopping spree in London when her husband is in Brussels? If their children are at boarding school or university here when the family's main residence is abroad, will they be able to claim back all the VAT on all the services used by their children? Will the Minister assure the Committee that the British taxpayer will not be subsidising shopping trips under the veil of making certain that the International Criminal Court judge cannot be undermined by the actions of his family?
Can the Minister also explain how these family members will be registered as part of the household? If there is, for example, an elderly relation who spends one half of the year with the judge, and the other half of the year with the sibling of the judge, will she be eligible for immunities and privileges?
I turn to a point on which I would like clarification. It reoccurs in clauses throughout the Bill and not just in this specific clause. If there were a case where an individual consistently abused the immunities and privileges awarded to him, will these privileges be removed? Can they be removed? What process would be used and who would decide whether he has abused the position awarded to him?
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC49
Granted, these suggested changes are in the interests of good administration of justice and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves. However, for people who hold positions of authority in organisations, particularly in the ICC and the ECHR, it is vital that they should set an example and remain accountable for their actions. After all, it is they who are calling others to account. As such, the Minister can see from my questions that I want to clarify exactly how far these privileges are extended to family members. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley: It is important to confer privileges and immunities on family members of officials of international organisations to ensure that the work of officials is not undermined by threats against close family members. That is why we want to cover family members. My noble friend Lord Triesman said much the same on an earlier amendment.
The proposed amendment would make it impossible for the UK to confer privileges and immunities on family members of senior staff of the International Criminal Court. The consequence would be that the UK would not be able fully to implement its obligations under the agreement on privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court of 2002, which it signed on 10 September 2002.
Conferral of immunities and privileges on family members of senior staff of an international organisation is nothing new. Privileges and immunities have been conferred, for example, on family members and officials of the following organisations: the World Trade Organisation; the International Maritime Organisation; the International Seabed Authority; the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation.
Similarly, family members of diplomats enjoy privileges and immunities by virtue of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Furthermore, by conferring privileges and immunities on family members of senior staff of the ICC, the UK will be doing nothing more than has been agreed by the other 62 states which have signed the ICC agreement, including nearly all of the European member states.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked me a number of questions and I shall do my best to answer as many as possible. I shall reply in writing to any I do not answer. The noble Baroness asked me how many ICC judges reside in this country. There is one; Sir Adrian Fulford.
The noble Baroness also asked whether, if an elderly relatives resides for half a year with the judge and half a year somewhere else, how the relative would benefit from privileges and immunities. The elderly relative will enjoy privileges and immunities only when residing with the judge. Once she stops residing, she will not enjoy privileges and immunities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about refunds of VAT to officials of the International Criminal Court. Refunds of VAT will be made only to
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC50
the organisation—to the ICC itself—for official activities and not to individual officials. She asked me several other questions which I shall answer in writing.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |