---

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Do these foreign dignitaries pay the tax in that case, or is it paid for them?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, they do.

Lord Roper: I am grateful to have learnt about this money-go-round, but on the whole I am glad it is to be done away with. Has the Revenue estimated the savings in Revenue staff which will result?

Baroness Crawley: I do not believe so, but I shall come back to the noble Lord if I am wrong.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before leaving the subject, would it be incredibly naive to suggest that this entire money-go-round of foreign bodies all over the world should be abolished? Speaking as the chairman of an international company based in London, with at least 12 foreign branches, I can say that we move people around the world a great deal. If someone living in London is invited to go and run my office in Singapore, he knows that he will have to pay tax and meet all the conditions of living in Singapore, with its standard of living and the value of its money. If he does not want to go, he does not go. Why are these international bodies given the privileges which do not apply to the rest of us who, I remind the Government, actually make the money to pay the tax which pays for the whole merry-go-round?

Baroness Rawlings: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her detailed reply. I look forward to receiving further written details. We shall decide whether to return to this point at a later stage. I thank the Minister for her answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]:

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Rawlings: This was one clause which gave me particular concern. As I noted on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, also expressed real doubts surrounding the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Agreement to the Motion would leave out Clause 4 from the Bill.

I reiterate the point I made on Second Reading that we believe closer co-operation and mutual recognition can only help the countries and organisations involved to tackle the problems we face not only today but in the
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC24
 
future. I also take heart from the Minister's comments that despite recent difficulties the OSCE remains a vibrant and important organisation; one with which we do not want to see the weakening of our relationship.

However, I question whether, if providing privileges and immunities to some of the OSCE's members' diplomats—for example, Belarus, whose record on human rights, together with some central Asian republics is well below par—does not undermine some of the basic standards and freedoms of our democracy—indeed, the beliefs of the British for which we fight.

Could that itself not weaken our country's standing and position on the world stage? It could also cause tension with groups fighting for democracy within these very countries. I ask myself and Members of the Committee what signal this sends to anti-democratic regimes. We must look carefully at the balance between supporting international organisations and the unintentional consequences of supporting these regimes through such organisations—regimes which allow the very human-rights atrocities we seek to wipe out.

Can the Minister clarify whether all member countries' diplomats accredited to the OSCE and their families will have full immunities when they are in the UK? Is it not highly questionable to expect the UK taxpayers to pick up the bill of the ruling elite in Belarus?

Lord Triesman: The Motion proposes the deletion of Clause 4 which is concerned with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation within Europe. Clause 4 will bring the OSCE within the scope of the International Organisations Act 1968 and enable the UK to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on the OSCE. The Government have looked carefully at the comments made during the Second Reading debate.

The intention of the Motion appears to be to prevent the conferral of the privileges and immunities on the OSCE. During Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made reference to the value of the OSCE, but qualified their support for providing the OSCE with legal status in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, was concerned to preserve the OSCE's flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, saw a case for making the OSCE a full inter-governmental organisation, but only if it had the potential to play the role of a full inter-governmental organisation in its own right, despite negative pressures from some countries.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, had concerns about the privileges and immunities being afforded to the ruling elite of countries such as Belarus with anti-democratic regimes and she has rightly returned to that issue today.

The reality is that this clause is needed to enable the UK to implement its political commitments in the Rome Council decision of 1993 by conferring legal capacity and privileges and immunities on the OSCE.
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC25
 
Deletion of the clause, as proposed, would make it impossible for the UK to comply with that undertaking.

The OSCE is an important instrument for the attainment of the Government's foreign policy priorities in international security. The Government do not want to see any weakening of our relationship with the OSCE. A failure to take this opportunity to implement the political commitments in the Rome Council decision must call into question our commitment to the OSCE altogether, whereas to include the OSCE in the Bill would be of little practical cost. It is unlikely that the OSCE will open a mission or an office in any part of the UK. The privileges and immunities conferred by the Bill would have an effect only on the occasional visits of OSCE officials—we believe that there are about 10 overnight stays by those officials per year—such as the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner on National Minorities.

The impact of the Motion would be political in that it would send a plain political message everywhere, but not operational in that we expect hardly any people from that organisation to be here and not to be based here as an organisation.

Apart from wanting to fulfil our international obligations properly, the UK remains committed to the OSCE's comprehensive and co-operative approach to security and our reasons are strong. The OSCE is the only security organisation in Europe considered a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. That is itself a distinction. In its region, it is the primary instrument for early warning and conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. Its membership, which brings together the Euro-Atlantic and Euro-Asian communities, provides a unique forum for development and implementation of common values and democratic standards which we regard as essential to our security in the UK. A large number of activities have given practical expression to those objectives. The OSCE sent election observation missions to Georgia last year. The statement on the elections helped promote democracy in Georgia.

The OSCE sent an election support team to Afghanistan to provide recommendations for future elections. It has observed elections in Belarus, Ukraine, Macedonia, Serbia, Kazakhstan and in the United States this year. It has been involved in arms reduction and the limiting of the sale of the Man-portable air defence system in its area. It is working to destroy stockpiles of ammunition and weapons in Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus to ensure not just the safety of that area but all our safety given the nature of the stockpiles of weapons that were held in those countries.

I emphasise what has been done in the Ukraine because it shows the overall value of the organisation, notwithstanding the questions which will unquestionably arise about some of the regimes in the organisation. In the Ukraine we have recently seen how the OSCE can help empower the population of the country to participate
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC26
 
actively in the democratisation process through upholding standards for fairness and free and fair elections. The Government value the unique contribution that it makes in all of those areas, in support of conflict prevention and nation building, including in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

The OCSE is also addressing new and emerging threats to security and stability in Europe, including terrorism, human trafficking and all forms of intolerance and hate crimes that threaten our societies. To exclude the OSCE from the provisions of the Bill must send in all of those circumstances entirely the wrong signals. Is it a perfect organisation? Of course not—points have been made very well and persuasively in that regard. However, are its benefits relating to any of those problems overwhelming in regard to the UK's interests? I submit that they are. In that light I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

---