| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): I thank the Minister for Europe for giving us an attempted explanation of what I could otherwise only describe as a triumph of bureaucratese. It is always a peculiar pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. He is one of those people who, even if they cannot make friends, certainly influence people. His comments on what he referred to as "les néo-cons" in France the other day gave an enormous boost to the no campaign in the run-up to the constitutional referendum on 29 May.
May I say, with no offence to the Minister, that I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary is not in his place today? He wrote to me about the Bill and told me about the importance that he attached to it. I thought that that importance might be sufficient to bring him to the House for what would be his last performance at the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the House.
In today's interconnected world, single nations often cannot deal with the challenges that face them individually. We must co-operate where possible through mutual recognition of diverse standards, and that in the end requires international organisations. The servants of the international organisations that enable such co-operation to take place have customarily been granted certain immunities from local laws and from taxes. Such privileges are essential to ensuring that those organisations run smoothly, but they cannot come at the cost of the organisations and their members being made accountable for their actions.
Although we broadly support the Bill, we have some questions which we hope the Minister will be able to answer. First—he has dealt with this, but I am not wholly convinced by his explanation—the Bill confers certain privileges on EU bodies to which it gives legal status. What is the legal basis for this, when the European Union itself does not enjoy a legal personality? The question was raised in the House of Lords European Union Committee and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee. Surely the Bill cannot assume that the constitution will in due course be ratified? It would be very dangerous if it did so.
The Bill also extends privileges and immunities to family members and the households of officials. I hope there is no possibility of British taxpayers subsidising
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1636
shopping trips for members of those organisations and their spouses. I raise the matter because there have been recent examples and articles in the media concerning what has become known as the UN gravy train and the so-called abuses by the children of UN staff. I know that there are planned reforms to the UN and I wish the Secretary-General every success in implementing them. With regard to today's business, will the Minister give a categorical assurance to Parliament that that cannot and will not happen under the provisions of the Bill?
We have a further serious concern. Clause 4 deals with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which includes among its members some states such as Belarus, whose record on human rights is on a par with Zimbabwe's. Does the Minister agree that we must be very careful about giving immunities and privileges to the ruling elite of such countries, particularly in view of the signal that that sends to those struggling against undemocratic regimes in other parts of the world?
In the light of article 1 of the sixth protocol, I understand that we signed a reservation when we agreed the European convention on human rights overall. Can the Minister confirm that this reservation was included in the instrument of ratification deposited in November 2001 and reaffirmed in 2003 in respect of the Isle of Man? Will he please explain to the House what has happened to that reservation?
Some of the immunities in the Bill concern monetary immunities. Why, when we have already waited so long to implement these changes to monetary immunities and privileges, have the Government chosen to implement them now, regardless of how low the cost is said to be? The country is already highly taxed. As the Minister knows, we have already seen 66 stealth tax rises under the Government.
We must take care to protect the rights of employees of international organisations. Concerns have been expressed for the human rights of employees who work in the Commonwealth Secretariat as regards transparency and their ability to air grievances, and about the accountability of the organisation, should employees be made immune from the British court system. Will the Minister please comment on that and reassure the House that what is provided in the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights?
Finally, my colleague in the other place, the noble Baroness Rawlings, introduced an amendment concerning the immunities granted to employees of the European Union. The amendment would have meant that clause 5, which covers the various privileges and immunities accorded to EU personnel, could not come into force until the Government
of those privileges and immunities and of whom they ought to be extended to. Given the forthcoming British presidency of the Council, initiating such a review would be straightforward. Although the Bill does not compel the Government to do so, an incoming Conservative Government would want to initiate such a review. I hope the Minister can give the same undertaking.
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1637
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. We will in general support the Bill, but I should be grateful for an answer to the important questions that I have raised.
3.49 pm
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh) (LD): The Minister will be aware that the Bill has had far more extensive debate in the other place. He will know from that debate that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill's intentions but have some reservations regarding, in particular, the first three clauses. We have always been concerned that the Bill should not impair the right to a fair hearing. Those who are affected by the immunities given must have recourse to adequate alternative avenues of dispute resolution, a point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Fully independent alternative mechanisms must be in place.
We have had concerns that extending the Commonwealth Secretariat's immunity, beyond that required by existing international obligations, to exclude the limited judicial oversight available under the Arbitration Act 1996 may risk disproportionate interference with the rights of access to court. There have also been concerns about recourse for employers of the Commonwealth Secretariat, in particular concern that the internal dispute-resolution mechanisms set out in the Bill on recourse for employees of the Commonwealth Secretariat might not be fully independent.
The Minister will be aware that my noble Friend Lord Wallace took a particular interest in the Bill and debated it at length. He expressed strong concerns about the emergence of a growing class of international officials in Britain, Europe and elsewhere which is immune from domestic taxation and beyond the obligations and protections of domestic law. He added that
Lord Wallace also raised the question of how far international immunity should be maintained and extended. He felt that the powers, privileges and status of the European Commission and many of its agencies were questionable—in particular
"the salaries of those involved, their access to duty-free sales and the extent to which the Commission and the various agencies are outside the remit of the employment law and regulations which the Commission itself imposes on member states and candidate countries."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2004; Vol. 667, c. 1471.]
We want a commitment that the Government will not just let the Bill slip by but will, in future negotiations in the European Union and other international organisations, take the opportunity to ask how many diplomatic immunities are needed by how many people, for what purposes and how far.
The Minister mentioned the number of officials affected, but—if I can catch his attention for a moment—will he clarify a point for me when he responds? He said that only 80 senior officials, of the 3,000 officials of intergovernmental organisations based
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1638
in the United Kingdom, are likely to be affected by the measures. In addition to those 3,000 officials, there are probably the same number—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing a point to the Minister, and as it is an important point, perhaps the Minister should take note of it.
Mr. Chidgey: I am most grateful to you for making that point on my behalf, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am not allowed to address the Minister directly, I was hardly able to point out that he did not seem to catch the comments that I was making.
I repeat my point for the benefit of the House and, in particular, of the Minister. The Minister said that only 80 chief officers were likely to be affected by the measures, and I should be grateful if he clarified that when he replies to the debate. Although he said that there were 3,000 officials, of whom only 80 were affected, I am uncertain whether he meant that. From debates in the other place, my understanding was that there is some concern that the 3,000 officials, plus their families and dependents, could easily number 6,000 people, and that that figure is likely to grow. As the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes has said, we are concerned that the measure may become a gravy train.
In my closing remarks, I shall address the human rights aspect of the Bill in more detail. I serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so I am familiar with its report about the issues raised by the Bill, and I am particular concerned about the Government's response to that report.
The Minister will be familiar with the Joint Committee's remarks about article 6 rights:
"Any restriction of Article 6 rights arising from the immunities from suit requires justification on the basis that it pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate, and must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances of the case."
The Joint Committee argued that in respect of the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, there is no international legal obligation to confer immunity from suit. I would particularly like the Minister to respond to that point, because he knows that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), assured members of the Committee that their concerns were unfounded.
The letter that the Under-Secretary, or perhaps one of his officials, wrote to the Committee on 25 February is a salutary lesson in the unfathomable use of our language. It stated that the Committee's concerns
"that extending the Commonwealth Secretariat's immunity under Clause 1 of the Bill in the absence of an international obligation to do so risks disproportionate interference with the Article 6 right of access to court"
"It would be improper and a breach of the UK's duties under international law for the Government to undertake to be bound by an international obligation before the legislation necessary to implement that obligation was in place. To do otherwise would mean that the UK would not be in a position to fulfil its obligation and this could result in a breach by the UK of its international obligation. If Parliament decided not to pass relevant legislation, the UK would continue to be in breach of the obligation."
In spite of that obfuscation, we are generally in favour of the Bill.
3.57 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |