INTERNATIONAL COFFEE ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) (Hansard, 10 December 1962)

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Coffee Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th November. This Order is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the International Coffee Agreement which was signed in New York on 28th September. The new Agreement takes account of the interests of both producers and consumers of this important commodity and, it is hoped, will be a means of helping us to solve the particularly intractable problems in world trade which coffee has hitherto presented.
The executive organ of the Agreement, the International Coffee Organisation, is to have its seat in London. The Agreement will enter into force when a sufficient number of producing and consuming countries have declared their intention to ratify it. This is likely to be early in the new year. By that time, Her Majesty's Government wish to be in a position to confer legal capacity and certain fiscal privileges on the Organisation. These will be exactly the same as those already accorded, with the approval of Parliament, to the Tin, Sugar and Wheat Councils.
The legal capacities of the Organisation, which will be the capacities of a body corporate, will enable it, for instance, to sue and be sued, to buy or lease premises in its own name, and to engage staff. Neither the officers of the Organisation nor the Organisation itself will enjoy jurisdictional immunity. The Organisation, which holds no buffer stock of coffee and is not a commercial concern, will be entitled under the Order to exemption from the taxation of its assets and income which it would otherwise have to meet.
But, as against this loss to the Exchequer, it will be appreciated that the subscriptions of member Governments will be paid into an account in the United Kingdom, the Organisation's foreign employees will spend their salaries here, and its locally engaged 166 employees will owe their jobs to its presence in this country. Moreover, the Organisation will still be subjected to the usual Customs duties on imported goods.
It will have to pay the proportion of the local rates on its official premises covering services from which it derives or may derive benefit, such as street lighting and the fire brigade. On the other hand, it will not pay towards services, such as local education, from which it does not benefit directly. This partial exemption is confined to the Organisation itself and does not affect its officers. Their only privilege will be exemption from Income Tax on salaries, and this will be restricted to those of them who are not nationals of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the House will agree that the extent to which we are being asked to benefit the International Coffee Organisation is reasonable. I am sure, too, that we all welcome the choice of London as the Organisation's headquarters, where the presence of three other commodity councils makes it easier for participating countries to provide representatives and for facilities to be shared. It is gratifying that, although Her Majesty's Government did not seek to have the Organisatian here, the great majority of delegations at the negotiating conference voted in favour of London as the seat of the Organisation. This underlines London's reputation as an international training and conference centre. I therefore invite the House to approve the Order, and hope that it will do so.

§ Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)
On all sides of the House we recognise that in the complicated interchange of services between countries—a tendency excellent in itself and to be encouraged—some measure of immunity is necessary for the citizens coming to this country and belonging to these various organisations. That, I believe, we concede in principle.
On the other hand, I begin to think that there is no Act of Parliament more hardly worked upon our Statute Book than the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, under which this Order is made. When one looks at such Orders as these, one becomes conscious of a long vista of such 167 Orders stretching back over the years. I have been concerned in a number of them, and I have had a feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the number is almost legion. I wonder how many people in this country can walk along the pavements of London and say that they are enjoying immunities and privileges which the ordinary citizens do not enjoy? By now there must be an enormous number. At some time, I think, we shall have to have a full debate on the numbers to which these people run.
While saying in advance that, as at present advised I do not wish to advise the House to oppose the Order, I ask the Minister, as a matter of common sense and political philosophy, why it is necessary that the officers of this Organisation should have the privileges which the Order confers upon them. Such Orders —at any rate most of them—confer upon the officers of the organisations to which they relate a protection from actions of libel or slander in respect of words written or uttered by them in the discharge of their duties. One can understand that it is necessary to invest the various officers engaged in the running of these organisations with a certain measure of protection in case they unwittingly render themselves liable to proceedings in the courts of this country, possibly not being as familiar with the law of this country as we are. That one can understand in principle. But this Order offers no such immunity. All the officers are just as open to proceedings and complaints in the courts of this country as is an ordinary citizen of this country.
But what the Order does, for some reason, is to exempt them from Income Tax. Why should that be so? I ask the Minister, is there any reciprocal immunity conferred upon citizens of this country in other countries in relation to this Organisation? The Minister referred to the Tin and Sugar Councils. We have not those Orders in front of us now, but I think that the Orders relating to them were framed to confer immunity in respect not only of tax obligations but of others. I do not know whether the Minister, without advising himself upon the matter, can say whether that is the case.
I ask him, as a matter of principle, why take this Organisation and its 168 officers, not being officers of British nationality, and say to them, "You need not pay tax on the incomes which you draw for work which you do in this country from this Organisation, although your British counterparts in the Organisation have to pay taxes"? What is the point of it? If we start with that and go beyond the necessary immunity which they must have in the conduct of their duty, where shall we end? How many people now do not pay Income Tax in respect of incomes drawn for services rendered on the soil of this country? What is the loss to the Revenue? I do not know whether the Minister can give a global figure representing the loss, but I dare say that accumulatively it must amount to a sizeable figure. Whilst always conceding that in general there must be a case for this sort of thing, I should like to ask the Minister, before this matter is finally committed to the judgment of the House, to say what is the case for granting this immunity. Why do they get this tax relief? The Minister simply said of the Order that it is an Order which confers this privilege upon them. Before the judgment of the House is passed upon the Measure he should tell us what is the case for it.
What is the international political case for saying that these officers do not need any other privileges in the discharge of their duty; that they do not do work which exposes them to special risks or which makes it obligatory that they should be protected in some way in which other persons are not protected in this country; that they are under no risk to which ordinary people are not subject; but that as a kind of douceur to these people, as a kind of sweet which we offer to them, they need not be taxed on income which they draw in pounds, shillings and pence, which is paid to them here and which, as the Minister says, is probably spent by them here and which is just like the income of any ordinary citizen here?
I should like the Minister to expand what he said in opening. What is the case for it? There probably is a case for it. In principle I do not oppose the making of these Orders, but I do not think that the Minister has satisfactorily made out a case for adding this new Order to the long list streaming back 169 into the past of these various immunities which are conferred on a growing number of persons in this country

§ Mr. P. Thomas
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said that he offers no real objection to the Orders but would like one or two points to be answered. The only privilege accorded to the officers of the Organisation is the privilege of exemption from Income Tax if they are foreign nationals. In other words, British nationals do not get that privilege. The reason why they have it is that in all these international organisations people who are serving away from their country get that privilege. Therefore, the delegations, when they entered into the Agreement, agreed that that would be so. British nationals overseas in similar organisations get similar privileges. Therefore, it is reciprocal. If they were to pay tax, it would mean that the contributions from the member Governments would be accordingly higher. Therefore, it is to the benefit of all members of the international organisation that there should be this privilege. This is the one privilege that they have.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned other diplomatic privileges and immunities which are found 170 in other cases, which are mainly of a diplomatic nature, such as the immunity from criminal action and action for libel. That does not apply in this case. In this case the minimum privilege is granted, which is purely for a foreign national to be exempted from taxation. I think that it will be accepted that it is only right that the organisation should have the status of a body corporate and that it is only right that it should pay only that proportion of the rates from which it derives benefit and should not, for instance, have to pay rates for education. As to its exemption from tax, countries do not impose taxation on an international organisation such as this. Again, it is reciprocal. In any event, it is not a commercial organisation and will not be earning money. Therefore, I think that it is wholly reasonable and I ask the House to approve the Order.