Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I rise slowly because I know the enthusiasm of some noble Lords to take part in the debate. This amendmentI will deal with the second amendment in the group in a momentwould mean that the Government's ability to meet their international obligations and commitments would be seriously delayed. I will reflect shortly on the consequences of such a delay.
As it covers not only Europe but also Commonwealth (worldwide organisations), we are dealing with the level of privileges and immunities to be afforded to international organisations in a sensible way and on a case-by-case basis. The privileges and immunities granted to any organisation are also subject to parliamentary scrutiny before they are given effect in UK law.
Although I was told that it was a wimpish conclusionI am probably going to be less than wimpish as I go through this speechI repeat the offer made by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean to meet the noble Lords proposing the amendments to discuss what clarifications are required. I make that offer recognising that there are officials at the UN and elsewhere who do enjoy immunities. It is not impossible in an international treaty, even if we all agree about the level of immunities and privileges, to find that some people may have abused them. Some people with full diplomatic cover have done so historically. I am thinking of Lord Home expelling a significant number of what were described as "Soviet diplomats" because they had exceeded by any measure the immunities that they plainly had in the time they were in this country.
The origins of the inviolability and immunities enjoyed by diplomatic missions, and more recently by international organisations, can be traced back a long way. I probably do not need to tell the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, this, as he is one of the country's acknowledged experts, but I am told that they probably started in ancient Greece, India and China. In the modern world, they are still considered by the international community to be essential to ensure that relations between states, bilateral or multilateral, through the medium of an international organisation, can be conducted without fear of intimidation or harassment of their representatives. It follows that international organisations and their staffif they find themselves benefiting from those immunities to enable them to fulfil their roles effectively and independently and without fear of undue pressure from any quarterwill do those jobs properly, in a way that is of benefit to the international community.
The Government's approach to questions of privileges and immunities for international organisations and their staff is long established. It is based on the fundamental principle that privileges and immunities are not for the benefit of individuals, and should be granted only where they are necessary to ensure that the organisation and its staff can perform their legitimate functions effectively. On the question of fiscal privileges, our policy adheres to
7 Feb 2005 : Column 568
the internationally accepted principles that one state should not tax another through the medium of an international organisation, and that states should not benefit financially from the presence of an organisation which happens to be located on their soil. The agreements setting up international organisations establish the level of privileges and immunities necessary for their efficient operation, and all are subject to separate negotiation.
When the Government consider their position on the level of privileges and immunities appropriate to each organisation, some factors are relevant. They were mentioned in our letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, which has been more widely circulated. They deal with the range of functions which we are discussing and about which perfectly legitimate questions have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others. The first factor is the area of activitywhether the organisation is of a political, commercial, social, cultural, technical, scientific or some other nature. Then there is the geographical scopewhether the organisations cover a wide area or are limited to a particular region, and whether they operate in the UK. For example, if an organisation has its headquarters in the UK, it may well be appropriate to confer a wider range of privileges and immunities on it.
The third factor is the power of decisionswhether an organisation's decisions are binding on member states and on individuals within them, or are recommendatory or only advisory. The fourth point is the role and purpose of the organisationwhether it serves limited interests, such as those of a few producers, or has wider aims, such as serving both producers and consumers; whether it is of a financial nature, aimed at the development and improvement of social conditions; or whether it is of considerable political or economic importance.
The fifth factor is financial considerations about functionswhether the organisation is non-profit-making and funded entirely by member states or has any commercial activities. The sixth is membershipwhether it is composed entirely of sovereign states or extends to non-governmental entities, and which states are members. The final factor is size. A large multinational organisation will normally require more extensive privileges and immunities than a small one.
The Government believe that to test against that template is the right practical and flexible approach. We will therefore continue to look closely at privileges and immunities proposed for international organisations on an individual basis, judged against those criteria. It is important to note that the immunities granted to the staff of international organisations are in general very restricted. Of the 3,000 staff of international organisations based or with offices in the United Kingdom, only 20 high officers enjoy the equivalent of full diplomatic immunity. The remainder have no immunity entitlement beyond immunity for acts performed in the course of their official duties.
There have been very few cases where staff of international organisations in the UK have abused their privileges or immunities. I acknowledged to the
7 Feb 2005 : Column 569
noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that in any human society it is not inconceivable that people will do so. However, all agreements on privileges and immunities to be afforded to international organisations do and must contain remediesmost importantly provision for immunity to be waivedwhich can be used where abuse does occur. While staff often enjoy exemption from national income tax on their official salary and emoluments, they are instead subject to an internal tax which is levied for the benefit of the body concerned.
It is at that point that I turn briefly away from the facts, to the philosophy that leads me to conclude that the amendment would not be appropriate at this time. I have discussed it with officials, and the scope of the work that would be involved in doing what is suggested in the amendment would be huge. If done, it would be a huge distraction from the international obligations that we will have as a nation over the next months.
There are obviously a number of things that we would like to do, given time to do so, and much that it might be beneficial to review and change. On occasion, we do so where it seems important. The change in European development aid, which we debated recently in this House, is a good examplewe made change where it really counted. It would not be sensible to engage in a serious delay. During the two presidencies, we could not conceivably raise the matter as a priority and try to expedite it.
What would happen if we set our priorities during the presidencies as the elimination of the appalling conditions of famine and poverty in Africa and a major attempt to try to deal with the terrible consequences of carbon emissions on the world's environment, and said, "By the way, we'd like to review a vast number of treaties as well"? That would take vast amounts of time. It simply could not be taken as a serious proposition at that stage. There would then need to be an even more serious delay until after those presidencies were completed, so that we could then embark on this huge volume of work. It does not make much sense.
That leads us to the amendment to Clause 11, Amendment No. 5. It is linked to the proposal in Amendment No. 4 that the legislation should not enter into force until a report on the framework for granting privileges and immunities has been published and debated in Parliament. That is bound to be an international operation. It could not sensibly be done without talking to those with whom we have international relations. For those reasons, the Government oppose both amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in the context of the questions that I put to the noble Lord, would the Government find it easier to accept the amendment if, instead of stating:
it read "Within one year" or a period of time from the passing of the Act, "a report shall be published" and so on? That might take some pressure off the Government and still meet the point of the amendment.
7 Feb 2005 : Column 570
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |