---

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Can I make a sacrifice for you?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We are not dealing with the same sorts of international organisations as 60 or 70 years ago. That is the whole thrust of arguments from these Benches.

Lord Roper: I was most grateful for the explanation from the Minister, in particular the reason why the 1965 protocol cannot apply to those bodies that have been created under Titles V and VI and why one has therefore to make specific provision in this Bill for the Orders in Council to be made. This is therefore an enabling Bill.

Just to go back to the point that I made, it would be very valuable if, before we get to the final stages of consideration of the Bill in this House, at least it were possible to see in draft the orders that would be likely to be made for the various bodies to which the Minister referred; namely, ATHENA, the Torrejon European Union Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies in Paris. In a sense, that would take up the point that I tried to make. We might want to have
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC39
 
different sorts of privileges for different sorts of institutions. We are not issuing all of them with exactly the same. In each case, it would be relevant to the degree in which a body operated within the United Kingdom. I assume that that would be one of the criteria to be applied.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may press the Minister on what he said about Europol. I think that he said that Europol did not enjoy immunity and that its officers did not enjoy immunity. I ask that particularly because there is a very disturbing story going around the City of London that recently a number of leading City institutions were raided by Europol officers simultaneously by teams of about a dozen officers each. Those officers were on a fishing expedition to see if the institutions concerned might have evidence that would be useful in a commercial case in Europe.

Those who have told me of this incident say that the officers behaved in a very dictatorial way and even informed the wretched recipients of their attentions that they were not allowed to discuss the visit. They blocked off the reception areas and attempted to freeze the buildings' offices while they carried out a search. I do not want to go further into the detail of the incident because obviously I am looking at it under a separate initiative. It would be very interesting to know from the Minister whether Europol in that action enjoyed any form of immunity. That would be helpful to the institutions concerned.

More generally, I am very grateful to the Minister for his exposition of the present state of play with immunity in the European Union and how that will progress if this Bill goes through. I do not want to sound ungrateful, but it would be very useful to have from the Government a list of the 19 agencies to which the noble Lord referred as being given immunity under the treaty of accession, and generally to have a list of all the bodies that currently enjoy immunity and those that might enjoy immunity, tax privileges and so on when this Bill has been passed.

I notice that the Minister referred to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Investment Bank. I do not think that I heard him refer to the Luxembourg Court of so-called Justice, which, as the noble Lord will know, many of us do not regard as a court of law at all but rather as the engine of the treaties. Would I be right in thinking that the Luxembourg Court also enjoys similar immunities?

I do not wish to detain the Committee now, but it would be helpful to have the detail of all the bodies concerned spelt out on paper; that is, those that already enjoy these immunities and those that might enjoy them in future.

Baroness Rawlings: I am glad that other noble Lords share my concerns.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Is the noble Baroness winding up?

Baroness Rawlings: No. I agree that putting a list of the bodies to which privileges and immunities will
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC40
 
apply is one way of making it clear to all exactly who is covered and who is not. It would also ensure that the list is amended and updated over time as new bodies would have to be added to the list, unlike my suggested list that is to be placed in the Library.

While I support the measure, I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks. Would he undertake to keep an up-to-date list on the department's website, if not on the face of the Bill? I am unsure but I think that we might also need to have another amendment in conjunction with this enabling the Secretary of State the power by order to amend the list.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My point arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, told the Committee about a raid on premises in the City. I accepted the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, gave to me about the immunity of Europol. He has obviously received advice that it has no immunities. But, from what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, it appears that Europol has some immunities and, indeed, is acting improperly if it is threatening people with sanctions if they as much as dare to give out facts in public. I do not know whether the Minister has anything further to say on that.

Lord Triesman: I shall try to sweep up the points as briefly as possible, but, again, a number of very substantive points have been made. I will certainly ensure that a list of the 19 agencies is placed in the Library of the House immediately. I am more than happy to discuss with officials the best way of ensuring that the list as updated—if ever—because of additions is made available. I can see no reason why that should not be the case. I undertake to do that.

Perhaps I may deal very quickly with a separate issue.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Can the Minister distribute that list to Members of the Committee? It would be helpful if we could all have copies.

Lord Triesman: By all means, I shall circulate it. There is no problem whatever, in my view, in ensuring that everybody has it. I should be delighted to do that.

First, I shall deal with some of the issues which are probably not right at the heart of the debate; I hope that Members of the Committee will take no offence when I say that. I have nothing to add to the points that I made about Europol. It was a clear statement, and I would prefer that it stay a clear statement. I am not able, for obvious reasons, to go through what might have happened in any particular police action in any particular location, about which I do not know and of which I have seen no proper or full account. I do not know what steps are taken by policemen from Europol or elsewhere to ensure that they go about their business in an unimpeded way in conducting whatever investigations which they feel are appropriate. I do not want to speculate about that matter, and I hope that Members of the Committee will not feel that that is a dismissive response. I simply feel that the original, fundamental statement is the most helpful way in which to get a clear position on the record.
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC41
 

I turn to the whole issue about which organisations have immunities and what level of immunities. Those points have been raised by most Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. First, I should say that the Court of Justice was mentioned in my response, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, should find it in the Official Report, when he has an opportunity to read it. The general issues are, I think, as follows.

I turn first to Orders in Council and what they can and cannot do, as that goes to the heart of so much of what we are talking about. Any Order in Council made under the clauses with which we are concerned shall be framed so as to secure that the privileges and immunities conferred by the order are not greater in extent than those which at the time when the order takes effect are required to be conferred in accordance with any agreement to which the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, is then a party. The agreement should specify the boundaries within which the whole of the system of privileges and immunities should operate, and it should not operate beyond that. That would be the only way in which any system of international treaty-making could possibly operate in any case.

The noble Lord, Lord Roper, particularly asked about, or probed the question of, the 1965 protocols. The protocols, privileges and immunities of the European Community apply only to European institutions. It is worth repeating for the sake of clarity that bodies set up under Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union are not European institutions. Examples of such institutions are the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. The protocol does not apply to EU bodies unless an EU regulation expressly provides that a protocol will apply to a specific body. That comes back to the point that I made about the legal basis for proceeding with the whole provision in the first place. No provision is made in any EU regulation for the protocol to apply to the EU bodies in question. I hope that those comments clarify that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised several related points. There are organisations, such as the OSCE, with which we dealt in the last clause, which do not need privileges and immunities. The effect of doing so would be to create a situation in which one group, mainly of western states, are formally categorised as democratically superior to others. That comes under the point that I made about a potential danger. That would not be acceptable or helpful to multilateral relations. The issues that we may have with such states are no doubt important to pursue—I do not deny that for one second—but they will not be best pursued by writing into the formality of international agreements that we regard some of them as second rate. I believe that I made that point earlier in the discussion.

Some have asked whether there is too much discretion allowed by the clauses proposed in the Bill as regards privileges and immunities conferred. I hope that I have expressed the basis on which those privileges and immunities can be constructed, and beyond which they may not go. If that is felt to be a
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column GC42
 
sufficient basis in current law—and of course I am citing current law rather than proposed law—I hope that the critical issues that have been raised in the debate have been expressed in Committee today, as far as I have been able to do so.

I add the following final points. Listing a limited number of organisations in the Bill rather than describing the category is probably not the best way in which to proceed, but I can understand that in probing the question we have drawn out the fundamentals of the issue. I believe that we have probably dealt with the critical definition of "legal capacity", which is set up in the same way. That is another matter covered by the amendments. Finally, there are matters which will probably be dealt with separately—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in his Written Questions, has queries about the rights of families and others, going beyond the most obvious categories of diplomats and the staff of bodies with which we have dealt up to now.

I hope that those comments answer appropriately the questions that have been raised. It is in that light that I invite Members of the Committee who have amendments in this group either to withdraw them or, in due course, not to move them.

---