Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The International Organisations Bill is designed to ensure the effective functioning of international organisations and bodies. The measures are required to enable Her Majesty's Government to meet outstanding international commitments to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on a number of international organisations and bodies and certain categories of individuals connected to them, or to ensure parity of treatment between organisations where appropriate.

Under existing legislation, we are unable to confer privileges and immunities on these organisations, even though we have signed international agreements committing us to do so. Some of the agreements are of long standing, dating back more than a decade.

For most of the organisations concerned, the privileges and immunities will be conferred by Orders in Council, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Consequently, Parliament will have ample opportunity to scrutinise and debate the specific privileges and immunities that will be conferred on these organisations.

Let me now turn to why we grant privileges and immunities to international organisations and bodies. Privileges and immunities are conferred on organisations and bodies so that they can carry out their functions without being impeded. The long-standing policy of HMG is that privileges and immunities should be granted primarily on the basis of functional need, to ensure that only those privileges and immunities necessary for the organisation to function effectively are granted. All cases are separately negotiated and it is rare that two organisations benefit from identical privileges and immunities.

Immunities granted to the staff of international organisations are generally very restricted. Of the 3,000 staff of international organisations based, or with offices, in the UK, only 80 senior officers enjoy the equivalent of full diplomatic privileges and immunities. The remainder have no entitlement beyond immunity for acts performed in the course of their official duties.

As regards privileges, the Government's policy adheres to the internationally accepted principle that states should not financially benefit from the presence of an organisation on their soil, and that one member state should not tax another through the medium of an international organisation. Immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the host state is justified by the need for independence of the international organisation and the necessity of precluding any undue interference by the host state with the activities of the international organisation. That ensures that the organisation can then work in an environment of independence and security without fear of legal reprisals. That is an established principle of international relations.

I turn to the details of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3 concern the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal. The Commonwealth Secretariat is the primary intergovernmental organisation of the Commonwealth. The CSAT is an internal arbitral body established to resolve contractual disputes between the Secretariat and its staff, or any other person who enters into a written contract with it.

The Bill will change the following three aspects of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. At present, the Secretariat has immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts in the UK, except in cases where the immunity is waived by the Secretary-General, in cases concerning motor accidents or motor traffic offences, and where arbitration proceedings are undertaken in respect of a written contract with the Secretariat.

That last exception, concerning arbitration proceedings, has been interpreted by the courts in the UK as allowing the courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over CSAT arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996. That particular exception to immunity will be removed by clause 1 of the Bill, which will bring the Secretariat's immunity provisions into line with those enjoyed by many other international organisations based in the UK.

The extended immunity will not apply to written contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, the Secretariat before clause 1 enters into force. For those contracts courts will continue to have supervisory jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1996.

The Bill will also change the privileges and immunities of the Commonwealth Secretariat staff. Clause 2 will accord the president and members of CSAT the same immunity from legal process in relation to their official acts that is conferred on the Commonwealth Secretariat staff under the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966. The Bill provides that if the CSAT is replaced by an equivalent successor body, an order may be made by the Secretary of State to amend the 1966 Act for the purposes of conferring privileges and immunities on the successor body equivalent to those enjoyed by the CSAT.

Clause 3 confers exemption from UK income tax on all staff of the Secretariat in respect of salaries and emoluments that they receive as its staff. That new exemption will not apply to pensions, annuities payments or to income received by staff from other sources. It is conditional on the Secretariat establishing an internal tax system for its own benefit, as is currently the case with a number of other international organisations.

I turn to the other organisations affected. Clause 4 concerns the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Bill will bring it within the scope of the International Organisations Act 1968, enabling the United Kingdom to implement the political commitments it made when it endorsed the 1993 Rome Council decision to confer on the OSCE domestic legal capacity and privileges and immunities. That will confirm our support for its work.

Clause 5 deals with EU bodies established under title V—Provisions on a Common Foreign and Security Policy—or title VI—Provisions on Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters—of the treaty on the European Union. To ensure there is no misunderstanding, I should emphasise here that we are not talking about bodies or institutions set up under the treaty establishing the European Community.

Under existing obligations, the Government are committed to conferring legal capacity and privileges and immunities on title V and title VI bodies of the treaty on the EU, and certain categories of individuals connected to them. At present there is no legislation which allows us to do this. The Bill will add a further section to the International Organisations Act 1968 to enable the UK to confer the necessary legal capacity and privileges and immunities, by Order in Council, on those bodies and individuals.

At present there are three EU bodies on which privileges and immunities will be conferred under this Bill. They are: ATHENA, the EU Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies. ATHENA is a financing mechanism set up to enable member states to contribute towards the financing of EU military peacekeeping missions, as the EU budget cannot be used for military operations. The satellite centre provides valuable satellite imagery analysis which helps the EU monitor crises across the world, and the Institute for Security Studies adds academic analysis and strategic thinking to the development of common foreign and security policy as a whole.

Clause 6 concerns the International Criminal Court. The ICC is a permanent court, based in The Hague, established by the Rome statute of the ICC. The purpose of the ICC is to try individuals for some of the most serious crimes known to mankind: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The court is now taking its first operational steps. It has opened two investigations, in northern Uganda and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Most recently, on 31 March, the Security Council passed a UK-sponsored resolution to refer the situation in Darfur to the court. The court will have to operate in some of the world's most difficult environments, so safety is paramount. In order to ensure its staff can work effectively, they need to be granted the added security provided by the ICC privileges and immunities agreement, which the United Kingdom signed in 2002. The Bill will amend the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to allow the UK to confer all the privileges and immunities necessary to fulfil its obligations under the ICC privileges and immunities agreement.

Clause 7 applies to the European Court of Human Rights. The court forms part of the Council of Europe. It enforces the Council of Europe's convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, also known as the European convention on human rights.

The sixth protocol to the general agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe confers privileges and immunities on members of the court. The UK has signed and ratified the sixth protocol subject to a reservation on article 1, which requires the conferral of privileges and immunities on family members of judges. The Bill will amend the International Organisations Act 1968 to allow the UK to implement article 1 of the sixth protocol fully and withdraw its reservation.

Clause 8 concerns the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ITLOS, which was established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a state party. The agreement on the privileges and immunities of ITLOS provides that the tribunal, and various categories of individuals connected with it, shall enjoy privileges and immunities. The UK signed the agreement but cannot ratify it as existing legislation does not permit its implementation. The Bill will bring ITLOS within the scope of the 1968 Act, enabling the UK to confer privileges and immunities on the tribunal and so ratify the agreement. The financial implications of the Bill are minimal. The only loss of revenue that might occur would be by way of refunds of VAT on travel and incidental costs for visiting officials. We estimate that this would be under £1,000 per annum. The Bill will not impose any additional regulation on the business, charities or voluntary sectors. By enabling us to confer privileges and immunities on them, the Bill will confirm our support for the work of these organisations and will be a clear demonstration that the UK is meeting its international commitments. I commend the Bill to the House.

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 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

"have initiated a review within the Council of the European Union" 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.

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.

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 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

"The justification of extending immunities to families again seems to be questionable."

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."—[Hansard, 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 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—

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.

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, 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" were unfounded. It continued:

"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.

I want to make one point to the Minister and, in a sense, my own Front Benchers. The Bill may well be desirable and necessary, and it may well be required to fulfil this or that obligation, but I hope that our agreement to this Bill will not in any sense imply that we completely underwrite all the organisations involved or expect them to continue indefinitely and without question. Once such bodies are established, they expand their activities and assume a sort of permanence, regardless of changes in the international context.

I hope that the Bill is being presented in a focused and limited way. Perhaps properly, it provides certain immunities under established international obligations. I hope that people here or anywhere else do not believe that hon. Members think that such organisations are completely wonderful and beyond criticism and that they should exist from now to eternity without challenge. That point is important, and I hope that the Minister or perhaps a Conservative Front Bencher, will nod in its direction.

I am grateful for hon. Members' comments, which are important. I will not rise to the remarks made by Mr. Ancram, who was sorely missed at Tuesday's final Foreign Affairs questions. [Interruption.] We look forward to his successor sitting on the Opposition Front Bench after the election on 5 May.

The points raised by hon. Members have been thoroughly discussed in the other place. In its 15th report of the current Session, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—Mr. Chidgey is a member of that Committee, and we are sorry that he is retiring—concluded that the Bill did not need to be brought to the attention of either House on human rights grounds.

Hon. Members have expressed concern about the general principle of conferring immunities and privileges, but it is simply the old injunction, "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." If we want British officials serving in international organisations in many different parts of the world to have appropriate immunities and privileges, it is rather arrogant of us not to be willing to find a small amount of parliamentary time—this Bill has been waiting for some years to be brought before Parliament—to put our own house in order in this regard.

Let me stress that privileges and immunities are there to protect officials, not Governments. I completely agree with the points raised about Belarus and other dictatorial countries, but citizens of any of those countries can serve honestly and openly on international bodies, and those gentlemen and, where appropriate, their families, should be thus protected.

Let me stress again that the House is not conferring such immunities and privileges on any single individual in any single organisation. They will all have to be brought before the House by way of affirmative motion under the Order-in-Council procedure. That will allow genuine concerns, which I fully accept, to be raised and debated.

I am not entirely surprised that the European Union was brought up. However, this is about existing treaty agreements—we are not talking about the constitutional treaty in any way. Some EU bodies need legal capacity and privileges and immunities to operate. Once one has agreed to European Council decisions—that is where Ministers of national Governments decide, not the Commission or a bureaucracy—or to other measures to establish them, the UK is under an obligation to confer them under international law. The fact that the EU does not have a legal personality except to the extent that it concludes agreements pursuant to articles 24 or 38 of the treaty on the European Union is immaterial.

Some powerful and important points were made by Members of the other place, and I am sure that those arguments can be discussed when we return with a statutory instrument. The entire House is conscious that we should not be creating new categories of privileged ladies and gentlemen in the UK who are not under the same laws of the land as we all have to abide by. However, international organisations are important. Many British citizens serve in them with great distinction, sometimes under some hardship, and as we applaud their work and insist that the countries in which they serve confer such immunities and privileges, we should not refuse them in the United Kingdom.

With that, I hope that the House can move forward into Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Bills">Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.