HL Deb 23 January 1990 vol 514 cc1004-8

8.23 p.m.

Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November 1989 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1990 also standing in my name on the Order Paper. I propose to move the second order formally once the first order has been dealt with. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the orders have been amended to read "1990" rather than "1989", which was the date when they were first laid.

The orders, when made, will enable the United Kingdom to grant to the European School at Culham in Oxfordshire and to its staff the same privileges as those enjoyed by the other European schools and their staff in other EC countries. Thus we can fulfil our obligations under European Community law and under the agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the board of governors of the European School signed at Brussels on 18th October 1988.

The European School at Culham was set up in 1978 and is one of nine such schools in Community countries. It educates the children of staff of the Joint European Torus project (JET) who have been seconded from the European Commission, other EC countries and other European centres.

The United Kingdom acceded to the statute of the European School and Protocol on 30th August 1972. Article 28 of the statute provides for the conclusion by the board of governors of the school of agreements governing the treatment of the school. It is in accordance with that provision that the headquarters agreement between the United Kingdom and the board of governors concerning the European School at Culham was concluded. That headquarters agreement is designed to ensure, in accordance with Article 28 of the statute, that the school can operate: in a favourable atmosphere under the best possible physical conditions".

The agreement serves the purpose of applying in detail the general provisions on establishment and government of European Schools which are included in the statute and the protocol. It is, therefore, ancillary to the statute and protocol (which are themselves regarded as pre-accession treaties) and therefore comes within the terms of Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972.

It is therefore proposed that the first draft order before the House —that relating to the privileges of the European School —should be made under Section 1(2) of the 1972 Act specifying the privileges which the European School is to enjoy in the United Kingdom. The second order specifies the headquarters agreement under Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act as a Community treaty and provides the basis for the first order. The headquarters agreement sets out the privileges which the European School is to enjoy in the UK.

The principal privileges to be conferred are, firstly, for the European School itself: legal capacity; exemption from taxes on income and capital gains; relief from VAT; exemption from import duties. Secondly, for teachers seconded to the school by member states: exemption from social security legislation; "first arrival" customs privileges; exemption from income tax of earnings, limited in the case of staff seconded by the United Kingdom to the European supplement paid by the school.

Similar privileges have been granted by all other host governments. The locally recruited staff at the school do not benefit from these privileges. The House will note that no one is given any immunity. We are satisfied that the privileges accorded under the draft orders are necessary both to fulfil our obligations in including those reflected in the European Court judgment in the Hurd case and to enable the school at Culham to function effectively.

I commend the European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 1990 to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November 1989 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Reay.)

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining both of the orders to us. The European School established at Culham 11 years ago has, I understand, been a success. I am advised that it has a good reputation and that the children who have attended it have done well.

It is worth noting that it is a fairly large school, with 825 pupils. As the noble Lord said, places are available to students who are not children of employees of the Joint European Torus project (the JET research project on thermo-nuclear fusion) for whom it was initially planned.

It is also noteworthy that the curriculum of the school is provided in five languages—Dutch, English, French, German and Italian. If it was established in Wales, Welsh would have to be added to that list. It should also be noted that there are nine similar schools throughout Europe and that the board of administration of each school has both teacher and parent representatives. I am sure that there are lessons to be learned by our own Department of Education and education authorities throughout the land from those schools as they have developed.

As the noble Lord has said, the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1990 designates the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the board of governors at the European School as a Community treaty. The privileges order implements the agreement between the two parties with respect to income tax, customs charges, and capital gains and VAT on school equipment. Those are substantial privileges. Indeed, one feels rather regretful that the benefits that will flow to the school under the privileges order in terms of money released for equipment and resources are not also available to our state schools in this country.

The noble Lord will have noted that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments found some of the Government's replies with respect to the European School to be less than —I quote the word used in the second report —"illuminating". The committee noted that the Government took the view that the European School has the capacity to enter into an international treaty, but have not stated why they took that view. That is dealt with in paragraph 6 of the second report. Perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten us and confirm whether that is standard procedure when dealing with treaties.

Secondly, on the question of the other eight European Schools being given similar privileges and exemptions, will the noble Lord say how many British subjects attend them as students? Furthermore, will he advise the House of any representations that he has received from the governors of the school with respect to the proposed changes and how he thinks they will affect the running of the school? Will there be any significant change?

Finally, I regret to say that the joint committee criticised the statutory instruments as being defectively drafted. I was sorry to see that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he thinks there is any validity in that criticism.

We agree that the school at Culham should be dealt with on a par with other schools and we wish the school every further success. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am being unduly pernickety, but I think it proper to ensure that the criticisms are dealt with at this time.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I too should like to say a few words about the statutory instruments. First, I concur with my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a great pity that many of the sums of money and facilities available to the European School are not, alas, available in our own schools in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that when the noble Lord replies to the debate he will deal seriously with the objections raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its second report, because these are two serious matters. They concern the competence of the European School to make a treaty. I sympathise with the committee's point of view. It also calls into account the validity of the orders. It would be sad if the House passed orders which were ultra vires after we had been advised by the joint committee that they were so.

My second point concerns the privileges given to the school and its staff. It is not only members of foreign countries who will be accorded the privilege of not paying United Kingdom income tax; staff members seconded to the school by the United Kingdom Government will also be involved. In other words, they will be civil servants who will be exempt from United Kingdom income tax on salaries and emoluments paid to them by the school.

Some of us believe that the school is an elite institution which gives privileges to a small elite from the European Community similar to the kind of privileges which were given, and might still be given, in Eastern bloc countries to the Communist apparatchiks who have run those countries. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us whether, in addition to being exempt from United Kingdom income tax on their salaries, staff members seconded to the school by the United Kingdom will be exempt from the poll tax. If so, the House will perhaps want to consider that matter. If they are so exempt, will their spouses also be exempt? That serious matter should be addressed by the Minister.

Finally, I regret that the orders have come before us at so late an hour. It almost appears as if the Government want to slip this kind of legislation through. I am sick and tired of European legislation of great note being slipped through when people are at dinner or doing other things, when they should be alert to what is happening and to the powers given to the EC or taken away from this Parliament, particularly the House of Commons. I hope that the Government will bring forward important orders of this kind at a more reasonable time when more people can embark upon the debate and scrutinise the legislation in the acute way in which it should be scrutinised.

Baroness David

My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, staff members seconded to the school by member states other than the United Kingdom are exempt from income tax in respect of salaries and emoluments paid to them by the school. We understand that a good many teachers come from member states to teach in our schools. Will they receive the same privileges? Secondly, what is the cost per pupil, what fees must be paid by those who go to the school and do any pupils go free?

Lord Reay

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for his generally constructive approach to the orders. I have no doubt that his remarks about the school, which has a good reputation, will be appreciated. He asked me a number of questions of which he was kind enough to give me notice, although unfortunately not sufficient notice for me to be able yet to have found answers in all cases. He made a point, which was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the defect in the original orders.

The orders were defectively drafted and, in the light of the criticisms made by the Statutory Instruments Committee, they were redrafted and relaid. The noble Lord also asked me how many British pupils there were in the other eight European Schools in other Community countries. I regret to say that I have not yet been able to find that out, but, when I do so, I shall write to him.

We all respect and enjoy listening to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but there is no question of the orders being slipped through or being in any way ultra vires. It was open to anyone who wished to do so to take part in the debate. I shall consider the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and reply to her in writing.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, perhaps I may repeat my question before the noble Lord sits down. I asked him whether British nationals seconded to the school, and their spouses, would be exempt from poll tax. I should like an answer to that question.

Lord Reay

My Lords, there is no provision in the headquarters agreement which will exempt those people from the community charge.

On Question, Motion agreed to.