The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mrs.
Janet Dean
Burgon,
Colin
(Elmet) (Lab)
Burt,
Alistair
(North-East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Davey,
Mr. Edward
(Kingston and Surbiton)
(LD)
Gerrard,
Mr. Neil
(Walthamstow)
(Lab)
Hall,
Patrick
(Bedford)
(Lab)
Hands,
Mr. Greg
(Hammersmith and Fulham)
(Con)
Lidington,
Mr. David
(Aylesbury)
(Con)
Love,
Mr. Andrew
(Edmonton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Merron,
Gillian
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs)
Oaten,
Mr. Mark
(Winchester)
(LD)
Pound,
Stephen
(Ealing, North)
(Lab)
Prosser,
Gwyn
(Dover) (Lab)
Soames,
Mr. Nicholas
(Mid-Sussex)
(Con)
Stanley,
Sir John
(Tonbridge and Malling)
(Con)
Tami,
Mark
(Alyn and Deeside)
(Lab)
Turner,
Mr. Neil
(Wigan)
(Lab)
Eliot Wilson, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 17
November
2008
[Mrs.
Janet Dean in the
Chair]
Draft International Organization for Migration (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2008
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs (Gillian Merron): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft International Organization for
Migration (Immunities and Privileges) Order
2008.
The
order was laid before the House on 23 October 2008 together with an
explanatory memorandum, as is now required for all affirmative
statutory instruments. It is a routine and technical order, conferring
the legal capacities of a body corporate, and privileges and
immunities, upon the International Organization for Migration. It also
confers privileges and immunities on representatives of the states
parties, the director general and officials of the organisation. Those
privileges and immunities are conferred in accordance with the
co-operation agreement with the IOM, which was signed on behalf of the
UK on 6 July 2006. The co-operation agreement is similar to other
agreements that we have with international organisations which have
headquarters or offices in the UK, such as the International Maritime
Organization and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
The order
allows the IOM to have the legal capacity of a body corporate, which
will assist with its day-to-day dealings in the UK, such as the ability
to contract, acquire and dispose of immovable and movable properties
and institute legal proceedings. The privileges and immunities that the
order accords to the IOM and specified categories of individuals
connected with it are similar to those routinely granted to that type
of international organisation with offices in the UK. The provisions in
the order have been closely scrutinised by the relevant Departments,
including Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, and considered by
the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Merits of
Statutory Instruments Committee of the House of Lords.
The
privileges and immunities to be accorded to the IOM are the minimum
necessary to enable it to function effectively in the UK and include
the extension of immunity from suit and legal process to its staff. I
draw the attention of hon. Members to article 10(1)(a) of the order,
which limits immunity for all IOM staff, except the head of office,
to
things done or
omitted to be done in the course of the performance of official
duties.
Article
11(1) of the co-operation agreement also states that the privileges and
immunities provided for individuals
are
granted
solely to ensure the unimpeded functioning of the Organization and the
complete independence of the persons to whom they are accorded. They
are not granted for the personal benefit of the individuals
concerned.
Hon. Members will note
that the total number of IOM staff in the UK is currently 82. The order
therefore will not provide a large increase in the number of
individuals who have received privileges and immunities in the UK,
which is currently around 24,000.
The order
also exempts both the IOM and its staff from certain taxes, such as
income tax, and that, again, is normal in such orders. Exemption from
taxation is based on the principle that no member state of an
international organisation should derive undue fiscal benefit from the
funds subscribed to the organisation from all its members. Taxation of
the IOM or its staff salaries would run counter to that general
principle.
I will say a
few words about the IOM. Managed migration is a key priority for the
Government, at home and overseas. The global environment is
challenging: there are some 200 million migrants worldwide and the
number is increasing. Our task is to ensure that migration works for
Britain, creating borders that are open to those who bring skills,
talent, business and creativity, yet closed to those who might cause us
harm or seek to enter the UK illegally. The IOM is dedicated to
promoting humane and orderly migration in partnership with Governments
and migrants. As a key partner for Governments and non-governmental
organisations, it helps support and facilitate return and reintegration
arrangements, running suitably structured projects in priority
countries.
The IOM works
in close partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the
Department for International Development and the UK Border Agency. It
makes a significant contribution to Government objectives in supporting
managed migration for the UK and the wider international context. For
example, the IOM has been essential in both developing and delivering
the Governments assisted voluntary return programmes. Those
have enabled the return to their countries of origin of more than
18,000 failed asylum seekers since 1999 and more than 2,600 illegal
migrants since 2004. The IOM has supported the building of capacity in
migration and border management for Ethiopian immigration authorities
and recently assisted stranded migrants in Libya to return home to
Ethiopia.
The IOM
delivers reintegration assistance in countries of origin for foreign
national prisoners returning under the facilitated returns scheme, and
the UK Border Agency programme has returned more than 2,000 foreign
national prisoners since it was introduced in October 2006. The IOM is
also a key partner in the delivery of the gateway protection programme,
under which the Government, working with the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, accept and resettle refugees from camps
abroad. The IOM delivers the logistics of the programme, including
medical screening, documentation and transportation.
The IOM is
funded through contributions from member sates. The UK contributed over
£20 million in 2007 for operational programmes and more than
£1 million as our assessed contribution to the IOMs core
administrative
budget.
The
order allows the UK to comply with its international obligations,
giving full effect to the privileges and immunities that were agreed in
our co-operation agreement signed with the IOM, and that will enable it
to continue to develop its strong partnership with the UK. I am
satisfied
that the order is compatible with the European convention on human
rights. It is an important order, which I hope will receive the
Committees full
support.
4.37
pm
Mr.
David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): I am grateful to the
Minister for her introduction to the order. As she said, it is largely
technical in character. If we are to be members of the IOM and it is to
have officers and a base in this country, it seems logical to extend to
it privileges comparable to those already enjoyed by other such
international organisations. I have three questions to which I hope the
Minister will be able to respond when concluding the
debate.
My
first question relates to article 8, which states
that
representatives
of Members at the meetings of the Organisation shall
enjoy,
among
other
privileges,
immunity
from personal arrest or
detention.
Will
the Minister explain how the protection given to representatives of IOM
member states in the measure will read when set alongside the
UKs other international obligations? For example, there is
currently a clear British and EU policy to restrict the movement of
senior members of the regime in Zimbabwe. The UK objected strongly when
President Mugabe was initially invited to an EU-Africa summit several
months ago, and there is clearly scope for embarrassment, at the very
least, if a representative of Zimbabwe or another regime subject to
comparable sanctions were able to evade restrictions on movement by
virtue of the privileges conferred by the order.
That could
apply not only to senior figures in Zimbabwe, but to individuals in
Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Future sanctions might be directed
against individuals in the Iranian regime on account of its nuclear
programme. Whether such restrictions on movement are implemented
domestically by Britain, by the EU or by the United Nations Security
Council, I would like to be clear about whether the privileges that we
are debating this afternoon override such restrictions automatically,
and if not, who is to decide which rules should have
precedence.
My other two
questions are more technical in nature. Paragraph 4.3 of the
explanatory memorandum issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
states:
The
privileges and immunities conferred by the draft Order are no greater
in extent than those required by the Agreement to enable the
Organization and specified individuals connected with the Organization
to function effectively.
I seek confirmation for
the record that the order cannot be interpreted as going further than
the words of the agreement between the UK and the IOM.
Lastly, I
shall press the Minister on the distinction that she drew between
actions undertaken by an officer of the IOM in their capacity as an IOM
officer, and actions undertaken by them in a personal capacity. She
rightly said that the intention behind the order was that actions
undertaken in that first context should be accorded immunity, but that
actions undertaken in any matter of purely personal benefit should not
be exempt from normal civil or criminal legal processes. How is that
distinction to be drawn in practice, as it entails a serious
restriction on the legal right of a British citizen who has been
aggrieved and who is perhaps trying to pursue a debt to take action
through the civil courts in the
normal way? Is the Minister confident that a proper distinction can
indeed be drawn, and that we can be certain that we are not putting our
citizens at an unfair
disadvantage?
4.42
pm
Gillian
Merron: I thank the Committee for its brief but important
consideration of the matter. In an effort to reply to some of the
points raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I will make several
further comments. The order relates to the fulfilment of the
UKs obligations to a key operational partner. We are committed,
as the Committee understands, to conferring those privileges and
immunities and agreeing to the co-operation agreement with the IOM in
July 2006 under the scope of the International Organisations Act
1968.
As the
Committee has heard, the IOM remains as dedicated as ever to ensuring
that the UK is able to continue effectively to deliver migration
projects around the world. Although the order is procedurally a
technical matter, it is still an important step in ensuring that the
strong and highly effective partnership between the UK and the IOM
continues to prosper. The hon. Member for Aylesbury inquired whether
the order goes further than the agreement, and I can confirm that they
are consistent with one another.
With regard
to the question on article 8, the UK is obliged to include that in the
order to implement article 9 of the co-operation agreement.
It is clear that the privileges and immunities of representatives are
only those that will be of benefit to the IOM and do not relate to
personal benefit. The privileges and immunities of representatives can
be waived by a member state. We have to give effect to the obligation
but would request such a waiver through diplomatic channels, as and
when
necessary.
Stephen
Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): The privileges are those
accorded to the head of a diplomatic mission, but we are talking about
the entire staff of the IOM. Is there a limit on the number of people
who can go through Customs without having their bags searched and who
have immunity from personal arrest or detention, even after they cease
working for the
IOM?
Gillian
Merron: The order does not set a limit on those who are
covered, but we are talking about 82 people currently
employed by the IOM. To the best of my knowledge, we are not likely to
see a major increase. In response to my hon. Friends query, I
can assure him that all will be well in the
world.
On
the final question from the hon. Member for Aylesbury, if there were
any doubt regarding official and non-official acts, we would negotiate
to ensure that privileges and immunities were waived. I can reassure
the hon. Gentleman that we wouldhow shall I put it?err
on that
side.
Mr.
Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way
and for the assurances that she has given, but she has not completely
set my fears at rest. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that
if there were worries on the part of the British Government, they would
make representations to the other country involved
about its representative attending a meeting of the International
Organization for Migration. It may be a hypothetical situation, but it
is none the less important. If, for example, the IOM were having a
meeting in London or had a representative passing through Heathrow who
was the subject of a travel ban and was not allowed to enter the United
Kingdom or the European Union, would we, once the order becomes law, be
required to waive that travel restriction so that the immunities
granted by the order took
precedence?
Gillian
Merron: I understand the hon. Gentlemans point,
but the order does not override such travel bans. With reference to
personal acts, with which the hon. Gentleman was rightly concerned, if
the matter or act were personal, no privileges or immunities would
apply. I re-emphasise for the Committees benefit that, if in
doubt, we will seek to waive the privileges and immunities, which are
not given lightly. Todays statutory instrument is intended to
ensure that we are all clear about who it applies to and how it will
apply to those in the IOM. With
that
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): Before the Minister
sits down, can she reassure the Committee that there is nothing
sinister about the absence of paragraph 4.4 from the
explanatory memorandum, which skips from paragraph 4.3 to paragraph
4.5, and that there is nothing that should be drawn to the
Committees attention?
Gillian
Merron: The hon. Gentleman is eagle-eyed and to be
congratulated. I assure him that there is nothing sinister in the
order.
Colin
Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): No doubt all my colleagues are aware
of the work of the International Organization for Migration, but I
confess that I am not up to speed on it. I notice that paragraph 7.6 of
the explanatory memorandum states that the IMO has an office in Leeds,
which is my home city. Without putting pressure on the Minister to give
a detailed breakdown now of the work carried out in Leeds, can she drop
me a line with the address of the office and a summary of the work that
it has been doing over the past couple of years in
Leeds?
Gillian
Merron: My hon. Friend, as ever, is speaking up for his
constituency. There is one member of staff in Leeds, so I am happy to
write to my hon. Friend to confirm what they are doing. In addition to
its offices in Leeds, the IOM has offices in Birmingham, Bristol,
Glasgow, Heathrow, Liverpool, Manchester and London, and it has been in
the UK since
1997.
I
thank the members of the Committee for what I anticipate will be their
support for the
order.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft International Organization for
Migration (Immunities and Privileges) Order
2008.
Committee
rose at ten minutes to Five
oclock.