| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before we leave the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is true, as the Bill appears to state, that these immunities and privileges will be extended not only to members of the families who form part of the households of the judges and so forth, but also to,
"persons attending meetings of the Assembly (including persons attending such meetings as observers and persons invited to such meetings)"?
That is what the Bill appears to provide, the Assembly being the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC statute, including the subsidiary organs of the Assembly. Is that really what is intended? If so, how is it justifiable?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, that is to be extended to those people to whom the noble referred for the course of their visit so that their work will not be impeded during their official duties.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. We have probed the matter quite far and I look forward to receiving a written reply to the unanswered questions.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that many of the agreements are outdated and need to be reviewed. Following the commitment given earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to look at the matter again, could not the whole issue of immunities and privileges provided in old treaties be raised during our presidency of the European Union? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [European Court of Human Rights]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall be agreed to?
Baroness Rawlings: During Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, explained that the changes in this clause would enable us to withdraw from our reservation of Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this reservation was included in the instrument of ratification deposited in November 2001 and that it was reaffirmed in 2003 in respect of the Isle of Man? Can she please explain why, when the Government reaffirmed the reservation not too long ago, they have chosen now to change their position? Have Her Majesty's Government been receiving lobbying on tax immunities for family members of judges of the European Court of Human Rights? If so, can she place copies of the correspondence relating to this in the Library?
I want also to reiterate a point I made on Second Reading. Can the noble Baroness please inform me whether she has asked the Joint Committee on Human Rights to report on this issue while the Bill is in the amending stages in this House? I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that the Joint
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC51
Committee's report will help inform this section of the debate and it is of little use once the opportunity to discuss it has passed.
There are similar issues here to those we have discussed in relation to Clause 6 and the ICC judges. I do not want to labour the point, but could the Minister clarify how far these immunities extend to family members? Would a teenage son of an ECHR judge causing affray outside a London nightclub be immune? Will it cover share portfolios? Could a judge or a family member go hunting and reclaim the VAT on the cost of hiring a horse? Who would be considered a member of the household? Would they be covered when travelling individually? Would it cover trips outside the country of residence? How would they remain accountable?
Could the Minister also explain to the Committee how tax immunities for ECHR judges and their families sit alongside Her Majesty's Government's domestic plans for judicial pensions? How would she counter the claims that there appears to be emerging one law for lawyers and judges and another for ordinary citizens? It would be of interest if she could provide the Committee with the average salary of an ECHR judge, an ICC judge and a domestic judge.
I continue to recognise the need to support the work of judges vis-à-vis privileges and immunities for their families. However, these judges and their families need to be accountable for their actions. In fact, does the Minister have any evidence that intimidation via the family regarding tax issues has been used in the past to influence a judge of the ICC or the ECHR? What studies have been made which show that it has affected our own domestic judges? Is this setting a precedent that will trickle down the system?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In the light of the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Rawlings, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether such privileges apply to our own poor old judges in the United Kingdom. They live in this country and judge our own common law. Do they have these privileges? If not, why not? If not, why should these other people have them?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I must delicately remind the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that one of the Members of her Front Bench is a dependent spouse of a judge of the International Court of Justice and has to make spousal visits to the Hague at regular intervals. I have done my best to sympathise with him from time to time.
I appreciate that these clauses are a matter of Her Majesty's Government fulfilling multilateral obligations, but, as with our earlier interventions, our point relates to how far we should be questioning the extension of such international rights. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said; that threats against close family members of judges are not those
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC52
which face international judges, and there are ways in which they can be dealt with. Incidentally, the case of the International Criminal Court is different from that of the European Court of Human Rights, and it would be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to begin to distinguish between global and European organisations, given the different circumstances within which they operate.
We look forward to hearing much more positive comments from the Government at the Report stage on how far they are willing to promote a review of diplomatic privileges. They are clearly based on a range of outdated arrangements which no longer apply in the world in which we now live.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It has been a most amazing afternoon which both sides will long remember. I was impressed when I heard the list of international organisations involved, which is why I have risen. The World Trade Organisation, for example, was mentioned. Why on earth do its officials need the privilege of immunity? I cannot understand why it is extending so far. It seems to me that the whole matter is being treated on an international scale far too lightly.
I repeat that I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in his hope that the Government will pay a great deal of attention to the debate and use whatever influence in whatever body they can, in particular during our six-month presidency of the European Union—God help us.
Lord Triesman: First, I want to express my sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. His reputation probably hangs in tatters this afternoon, having worked on it so carefully over many years. He has a distinguished academic career not only behind him but I hope still ahead of him. He will have his work cut out to recover.
I want to make one general point on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and then turn to the others. International relations have become hugely more complex. It is not only that there is a propensity across the world communities to invent more organisations—perhaps there is such a propensity but it is not the critical issue—but it is a hugely complex world. We have chosen to develop institutions—on which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is of course one of the great experts in the United Kingdom—to try to mediate those relations, to deal with those complexities and to arrive at civilised agreements, rather than some of the historic ways in which people have tried to resolve difficulties.
The World Trade Organisation is an interesting example. I cannot believe that it has been an accident that it has been a target of eco-terrorism and that some very violent and disruptive events have been held around some of its meetings. I have no doubt that some of those charged with the intricate issues, sorting out what would otherwise be extremely difficult trade relations and imbalances in a highly liberalised world market, have to
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC53
do some with some confidence that they will not be subjected to the kinds of threats and intimidation that would make that work wholly impossible. I make the point that, as we begin to consider these organisations perhaps a little forensically, there is a great deal more for us to think about than immediately meets the eye.
As we have mentioned in the discussion on Clause 6 during the Second Reading, the importance of conferring privileges and immunities on family members of officials of international organisations should not be underestimated. It is important to ensure that the work of officials cannot be undermined by threats against close family members. The proposed amendment would make it impossible for the UK to confer privileges and immunities on family members of judges of the European Court of Human Rights.
As a result, the United Kingdom would not be able to withdraw the reservation it made when it ratified the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe of 1949. This reservation provides that,
"until such time as the necessary legislation is enacted, the UK reserves the right not to apply Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol in respect of the spouses and minor children of judges".
The reasoning behind the reservation was that at the time of ratification the UK legislation was not in place to enable us to implement Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol. Clause 7 fills the gap historically left there and allows us to give full effect to the Sixth Protocol. Conferring privileges and immunities on family members of senior staff of an international organisation is nothing new, as my noble friend Lady Crawley said. It reflects, under the current conventions of international law, most of the ways in which these matters are conducted.
In referring to the way in which these matters are currently conducted, it is clear that if there were a review of these matters across the European Union, in the next six months during the course of the presidency, or whenever, I cannot conceive of circumstances in which the United Kingdom would not have a view to put—and probably a robust view. When the occasion for a review arises, I have no doubt that it will be seized upon. For obvious reasons, I do not, without further consultation with ministerial colleagues, want to talk about initiating reviews other than the ones that we might reasonably anticipate. However, I do intend to have that discussion and to see where the lie of the land is, in the light of the interventions made during the course of this Grand Committee.
Let me turn to the many questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, which were almost as intimidating as some of the examinations that I faced many years ago, at about the same time as many of these international conventions were beginning. I have a fear that I shall again miss some of the questions, but I shall deal with as many as I can and will go through Hansard to ensure that we have covered everything.
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC54
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked whether the United Kingdom judges would benefit from the privileges and immunities. No, they do not benefit from the same privileges and immunities conferred on judges of the ECHR, but they enjoy some immunities. For example, it is not possible under UK law to seek to prosecute a judge in respect of his work—in other words, the judgments made by him or her in statements of the court and in respect of the official work carried out. In all those respects there are plain immunities.
Let me turn to all the other ways in which United Kingdom judges may be a very oppressed class among us, certainly when compared with others. On the question of the relationship between the salaries of judges in the ECHR and the ICC and of the United Kingdom's judges, real accuracy in the presentation of the scales would be rather better than a general impression, and we will provide those figures accurately.
The questions on tax immunities for judges in the European Court related to the domestic plans for judicial pensions, as the noble Baroness said. We see no link between the tax immunities for judges in the European Court and the Government's policy and domestic plans for judicial pensions. The judges at the Court do not actually receive a pension from the Council of Europe. Their salary is fixed at a level that theoretically allows them to make their own pension provision.
A question was raised about the extent of tax immunities for judges. Judges are exempt in the European Court from income tax in respect of their salaries and emoluments. That exemption does not apply to pensions or annuities paid by the Court and does not extend to any other income source that they may gain as individuals.
Finally, I turn to the whole question of the UK reservation. It applies to the sixth protocol of the general agreement on privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe in 2001, not to the European Convention on Human Rights. I confirm that our reservation was included in the instrument of ratification in November 2001 and was reaffirmed in 2003 in respect of the Isle of Man, which was the centre of the question. Once the Bill enters into force, should it do so, an Order in Council can be made under the then International Organisations Act conferring privileges and immunities on the family members of judges, thus enabling us to withdraw the reservation to the sixth protocol.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is aware of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said—it is worth repeating—it has informed us that it will report on the Bill by the end of January. In all the matters on family members, the same fundamental questions have remained in focus. What are our obligations under current law? Can we fulfil them and make good our word? Should we review them? I will not go through those points again; they have been argued with great force and articulate cogency on the part of the noble Lords who have raised all the questions today. I hope
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC55
that we have given at least some comfort in recognising that where we are may very well need to give way to a discussion of where we ought to be in due course.
Clause 7 agreed to.
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC56
Bill reported without amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |