| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tessa Jowell: I rise to put one or two points on the record. I do not think any legislation in this Parliament has undergone the scrutiny that this legislation has. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and to his colleagues on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. A total of 160 recommendations were made by the Committee, 130 of which were adopted and incorporated in the Bill, so it is about as far from rubber-stamped legislation as it is possible to imagine.
Once we have passed the Bill, we will have arguably the most protective gambling legislation in the world. That will safeguard our record as a country with one of the lowest rates of problem gambling, obviously excepting those countries where gambling is banned.
The final point is in relation to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). There has been a process of parliamentary debate—just that—about a tricky issue and the debate has focused essentially on the role of regional casinos and the number of regional casinos. It developed from the position on Second Reading, where the Government's view was that the number of regional casinos should be determined by the market, but within the context of a very clear regulatory framework, with a veto being available to local people as to whether they wanted casinos. Therefore, the debate to which he refers is a debate about numbers. It is not a debate about substance.
It is important that the industry remains supportive of this Bill and has confidence in it. The decision to reduce from eight to one the number of regional casinos in the first stage means probably the loss of £600 million of inward investment to some of those parts of the country where that inward investment is most needed, and the loss of probably in excess of 40,000 jobs. No Government can bind the next Parliament, but it will be for the next Parliament to decide whether, in the light of demand and consistent with the precautionary principle, that number should be increased.
Lords amendment No. 4 disagreed to.
Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 8, 93, 94 and 168.
Tessa Jowell: This group improves the protection for charity lotteries and I ask the House to approve them.
Lords amendments 6 to 11 agreed to.
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1630
Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23, 24, 107, 112 and 114.
Tessa Jowell: These amendments deal with the protection of children, the Government's overriding concern in bringing forward the Bill, and I propose that the House accept them.
Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15 agreed to.
Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 19, 33, 34 and 38.
Tessa Jowell: I propose that the House accept each of the amendments in the group, which ensure the effective regulation of remote gambling.
Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21 agreed to.
Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 32, 35, 49, 81 to 90, 100 to103 and 105.
Tessa Jowell: I propose that the House agrees to the amendments in this group, which concern the regulation of gaming machines and deliver on the Government's pledge to consult on any proposals for an age limit for gaming machines that children can use.
Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 55 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 56, after clause 175, to insert the following new clause—Pool betting on dog races.
Tessa Jowell:
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1631
Again, I propose that the House accept the amendment, which addresses concerns raised with the Government by the greyhound industry, which has confirmed that it is happy with the amendment.
Lords amendment: No. 57, after clause 177, to insert the following new clause—Christmas day.
Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is also known as the Santa clause. I propose that the House agree to the amendment, which prohibits licensed gambling premises from offering gambling on Christmas day.
Lords amendments Nos. 58 to 193 agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Don. Foster, Tessa Jowell, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. Tom Watson to be members of the Committee; Tessa Jowell to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr.Watson.]
Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
Supreme Court of England and Wales
That the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 656), dated 11th March 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1632
International Organisations Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
3.33 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The International Organisations Bill is designed to ensure the effective functioning of international organisations and bodies. The measures are required to enable Her Majesty's Government to meet outstanding international commitments to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on a number of international organisations and bodies and certain categories of individuals connected to them, or to ensure parity of treatment between organisations where appropriate.
Under existing legislation, we are unable to confer privileges and immunities on these organisations, even though we have signed international agreements committing us to do so. Some of the agreements are of long standing, dating back more than a decade.
For most of the organisations concerned, the privileges and immunities will be conferred by Orders in Council, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Consequently, Parliament will have ample opportunity to scrutinise and debate the specific privileges and immunities that will be conferred on these organisations.
Let me now turn to why we grant privileges and immunities to international organisations and bodies. Privileges and immunities are conferred on organisations and bodies so that they can carry out their functions without being impeded. The long-standing policy of HMG is that privileges and immunities should be granted primarily on the basis of functional need, to ensure that only those privileges and immunities necessary for the organisation to function effectively are granted. All cases are separately negotiated and it is rare that two organisations benefit from identical privileges and immunities.
Immunities granted to the staff of international organisations are generally very restricted. Of the 3,000 staff of international organisations based, or with offices, in the UK, only 80 senior officers enjoy the equivalent of full diplomatic privileges and immunities. The remainder have no entitlement beyond immunity for acts performed in the course of their official duties.
As regards privileges, the Government's policy adheres to the internationally accepted principle that states should not financially benefit from the presence of an organisation on their soil, and that one member state should not tax another through the medium of an international organisation. Immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the host state is justified by the need for independence of the international organisation and the necessity of precluding any undue interference by the host state with the activities of the international organisation. That ensures that the organisation can then work in an environment of independence and security without fear of legal reprisals. That is an established principle of international relations.
I turn to the details of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3 concern the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal. The Commonwealth
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1633
Secretariat is the primary intergovernmental organisation of the Commonwealth. The CSAT is an internal arbitral body established to resolve contractual disputes between the Secretariat and its staff, or any other person who enters into a written contract with it.
The Bill will change the following three aspects of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. At present, the Secretariat has immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts in the UK, except in cases where the immunity is waived by the Secretary-General, in cases concerning motor accidents or motor traffic offences, and where arbitration proceedings are undertaken in respect of a written contract with the Secretariat.
That last exception, concerning arbitration proceedings, has been interpreted by the courts in the UK as allowing the courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over CSAT arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996. That particular exception to immunity will be removed by clause 1 of the Bill, which will bring the Secretariat's immunity provisions into line with those enjoyed by many other international organisations based in the UK.
The extended immunity will not apply to written contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, the Secretariat before clause 1 enters into force. For those contracts courts will continue to have supervisory jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1996.
The Bill will also change the privileges and immunities of the Commonwealth Secretariat staff. Clause 2 will accord the president and members of CSAT the same immunity from legal process in relation to their official acts that is conferred on the Commonwealth Secretariat staff under the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966. The Bill provides that if the CSAT is replaced by an equivalent successor body, an order may be made by the Secretary of State to amend the 1966 Act for the purposes of conferring privileges and immunities on the successor body equivalent to those enjoyed by the CSAT.
Clause 3 confers exemption from UK income tax on all staff of the Secretariat in respect of salaries and emoluments that they receive as its staff. That new exemption will not apply to pensions, annuities payments or to income received by staff from other sources. It is conditional on the Secretariat establishing an internal tax system for its own benefit, as is currently the case with a number of other international organisations.
I turn to the other organisations affected. Clause 4 concerns the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Bill will bring it within the scope of the International Organisations Act 1968, enabling the United Kingdom to implement the political commitments it made when it endorsed the 1993 Rome Council decision to confer on the OSCE domestic legal capacity and privileges and immunities. That will confirm our support for its work.
Clause 5 deals with EU bodies established under title V—Provisions on a Common Foreign and Security Policy—or title VI—Provisions on Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters—of the treaty on the European Union. To ensure there is no misunderstanding, I should emphasise here that we are not talking about bodies or institutions set up under the treaty establishing the European Community.
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1634
Under existing obligations, the Government are committed to conferring legal capacity and privileges and immunities on title V and title VI bodies of the treaty on the EU, and certain categories of individuals connected to them. At present there is no legislation which allows us to do this. The Bill will add a further section to the International Organisations Act 1968 to enable the UK to confer the necessary legal capacity and privileges and immunities, by Order in Council, on those bodies and individuals.
At present there are three EU bodies on which privileges and immunities will be conferred under this Bill. They are: ATHENA, the EU Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies. ATHENA is a financing mechanism set up to enable member states to contribute towards the financing of EU military peacekeeping missions, as the EU budget cannot be used for military operations. The satellite centre provides valuable satellite imagery analysis which helps the EU monitor crises across the world, and the Institute for Security Studies adds academic analysis and strategic thinking to the development of common foreign and security policy as a whole.
Clause 6 concerns the International Criminal Court. The ICC is a permanent court, based in The Hague, established by the Rome statute of the ICC. The purpose of the ICC is to try individuals for some of the most serious crimes known to mankind: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The court is now taking its first operational steps. It has opened two investigations, in northern Uganda and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Most recently, on 31 March, the Security Council passed a UK-sponsored resolution to refer the situation in Darfur to the court. The court will have to operate in some of the world's most difficult environments, so safety is paramount. In order to ensure its staff can work effectively, they need to be granted the added security provided by the ICC privileges and immunities agreement, which the United Kingdom signed in 2002. The Bill will amend the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to allow the UK to confer all the privileges and immunities necessary to fulfil its obligations under the ICC privileges and immunities agreement.
Clause 7 applies to the European Court of Human Rights. The court forms part of the Council of Europe. It enforces the Council of Europe's convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, also known as the European convention on human rights.
The sixth protocol to the general agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe confers privileges and immunities on members of the court. The UK has signed and ratified the sixth protocol subject to a reservation on article 1, which requires the conferral of privileges and immunities on family members of judges. The Bill will amend the International Organisations Act 1968 to allow the UK to implement article 1 of the sixth protocol fully and withdraw its reservation.
Clause 8 concerns the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ITLOS, which was established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a state party. The agreement on the privileges and immunities of ITLOS provides that the tribunal, and
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1635
various categories of individuals connected with it, shall enjoy privileges and immunities. The UK signed the agreement but cannot ratify it as existing legislation does not permit its implementation. The Bill will bring ITLOS within the scope of the 1968 Act, enabling the UK to confer privileges and immunities on the tribunal and so ratify the agreement.
The financial implications of the Bill are minimal. The only loss of revenue that might occur would be by way of refunds of VAT on travel and incidental costs for visiting officials. We estimate that this would be under £1,000 per annum. The Bill will not impose any additional regulation on the business, charities or voluntary sectors. By enabling us to confer privileges and immunities on them, the Bill will confirm our support for the work of these organisations and will be a clear demonstration that the UK is meeting its international commitments. I commend the Bill to the House.
3.44 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |