The first Amendment to Clause 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in Clause 2, page 2, line 21, after "inspection", insert "of the official archives or", appears to deal with the same point as the second Amendment in the name of the Minister. I propose therefore to select the second Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, after "any", to insert "record or".

We are grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down his Amendment. I think the only difference between us is a matter of drafting. The intention of the Amendment is to extend the proviso of this Clause to material other than documents; in other words, to records such as tapes and films.

The words proposed by my right hon. Friend would involve a tautology, because archives include documents. Records do not include all documents, and records are defined in Clause 8 of the Bill. We feel, therefore, that by eliminating this tautology and by gaining the point at which my hon. Friend is aiming we shall be able to satisfy the aim of this Clause.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:

(a) by any person acting through legal process;

(b) by a constable acting in the execution of a warrant.

I doubt whether I can explain the Amendment in the short time that remains to me. Under Clause 2 as it stands two important steps for procedure of civil litigation are precluded. Firstly, the step in our courts of being able to oblige your opponent to disclose relevant documents, and secondly, to be able to oblige a witness to produce relevant documents. As the Clause stands both of these would be precluded, and the Amendment is intended to restore these rights to the litigant.

The effect of Clause 2 is to create a legal body that can sue or be sued in our courts. In the course of proceedings, although it is given this legal entity, it is given certain immunities, and, therefore, certain advantages, against other litigants. We know of those certain advantages in connection with the Crown, diplomatic privilege and other international organisations, but in cases of other organisations they are free from process against them. In this case, it is merely a partial immunity and, therefore, a considerable advantage to the organisation against other litigants.

The Convention in Article 25 gives the organisation full liability, in contract and in tort, and that is carried out in the Bill in Clause 2 (1), the first sentence of which gives the organisation the legal capacity of a body corporate. The whole intention in the Bill is to enable a person to sue the organisation, as one can see from Clause 7.

The Convention in Article 26 deals with the immunities of the organisation and that is carried out in Clause 2 (3) but that reduces, in my submission, the ambit of Article 26 of the Convention. To illustrate this; if a person is suing the organisation for negligence in directing aircraft involved, say, in an accident, if a person is suing the organisation for something which resulted in that—a negligence in the use of the organisation's property, its assets, vehicles, and so on—then that plaintiff is prevented by this Clause, as it stands, from forcing the organisation to produce documents relevant to those proceedings.