Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS OF 7 & 8 GEO. 6 C. 44.) (Hansard, 31 March 1950)

§ Mr. Richard Law (Hull, Haltemprice)
I hope that the Committee will not think it impertinent of me to intervene in this Debate when I was not present during the earlier stages of the Bill. Last Friday I had a compelling engagement in my constituency. My main reason for intervening today is that, as the Minister of State will understand from his research, I was closely engaged in this matter six years ago when the original Bill which was the cause of all the trouble came before the House.
There is a curious position in regard to this Amendment. I see on reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate last week, that there is absolute agreement that the substance of this Amendment is right. There is nobody on either side who would for a moment argue that British subjects who are connected with the Consultative Assembly, and who are normally resident in the United Kingdom, should have tax exemption of any kind. Indeed, the Minister of State has already asserted categorically that he does not dissent at all from the substance of our Amendment. I should like to consider the Minister's argument against the Amendment. It is the familiar one that if in legislation of this kind we fasten on one immunity and put it in the Bill, then by implication we are excluding many other immunities which in fact we intend to keep within the ambit of the Bill. That 719 is a familiar argument and it is not unsound in itself. It is one which I think every Minister must have used at one time or another, but I believe that it is unsound in the circumstances which we are discussing today.
I have two reasons for saying that. First, the world in which we live is one of extremely heavy, indeed penal, taxation. It is a world, too, of officialdom in which the bureaucracy has multiplied and proliferated to an almost fantastic extent. It is a matter of the first importance that in the kind of world we are in today, of high taxation and widespread bureaucracy, it should be made abundantly clear by Parliament on every possible occasion that officials, as officials, are not a privileged class and do not have exemptions from burdens, or positive privileges, that ordinary subjects of the King do not have.
That is a rule which we cannot keep absolutely and exclusively. There are officials' cars, and though I do not think anybody likes them, they are probably inevitable; officials still have priority on sleeping cars, and so on. I do not think anybody favours that of itself, but it does seem to me that, where we are determined not to give official priority and immunity, we should state so definitely and should lose no opportunity, such as this Amendment gives us, of asserting that the official class is not a privileged class.
There is another reason why I believe that, in these circumstances, the Minister's argument of exclusion is unsound, and it is a reason which I derive from my own experience when the original Bill was passing through the House. At that time, the same objections were made by the House of Commons, and I used precisely the same arguments as the Minister is using now. I said that we had no intention whatever of giving any such immunity from taxation, but that it was unnecessary to put it in the bill. The outcome was very different, because, in fact, we gave way on this point, and when it was found by the Government of the day in 1946 necessary to provide such immunity, new legislation was accordingly introduced to provide for it. The Minister sought to argue—and he very nearly did argue last week—that the fact that this immunity was made necessary 720 was an argument against the Government of the day having inserted an Amendment of this kind in the Bill of 1944, because he said it had proved in the event to be ineffective. I do not think that that vitiates the argument for the Amendment at all; indeed, I think that, if anything, it supports it.
I am sure that the Minister of State would agree that it is vital that no Minister and none of us here should do anything at all to debase the moral currency, and none of us wants to do so. Ministers should not, therefore, get into the habit of giving categorical pledges which, from circumstances beyond their control, they may not be able to keep in future. In a case of this kind it is far better to put the matter into the Bill, so that all can see that it is there. It does express the intention and will of the House of Commons, and it is far better to have it in the Bill, even at the cost of some future inconvenience. Whatever embarrassment the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, who was Minister of State in 1946, may have encountered as a result of the Clause in the Bill limiting his powers in this respect, I think he would have found equal embarrassment from the pledge given by his predecessor as Minister of State.
I suggest to the Minister that his objection to this Amendment, the purpose of which he supports, is in some ways unreal, and that he would lose nothing, but might rather gain very much, if he could see his way to accept it.

§ The Minister of State (Mr. Younger)
I am very grateful for the reasoned way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law) has put the case this morning. It is, however, an instance of the poacher turned gamekeeper, because he suggested that I have been meeting the same kind of difficulties which he himself encountered in 1944. From one point of view, I thought that his argument showed a slight misunderstanding. He said that, now that there are so many officials and now that taxation is so heavy, and, therefore, exemption from it is such a very great privilege, we need to be particularly careful to ensure that officials, as officials, do not enjoy unnecessarily privileges that are not available to the ordinary citizen. I would accept that argument in general, though I am not sure how far it applies 721 to the Amendment. Unless I have misunderstood it, what the Amendment really aims to do is not to cover the possible granting to officials of immunity from taxation, but to cover the possible granting of immunity from taxation to unofficial representatives attending the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.
11.15 a.m.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the proviso in the 1944 Act. The reason why it was found impossible to retain that provision in the 1946 legislation was that there are, of course, occasions when exemptions of this kind should properly be granted to officials who may be living abroad and working for an international organisation. It is one of the great problems of international organisations, whose staffs are recruited from the nationals of many countries, to find some way in which their salaries and remuneration can be equalised, so that people holding equal posts receive equal remuneration, no matter whether they are nationals of France, the United States or Great Britain. The only way in which that can be done is by some international arrangement whereby their salaries are exempted from national taxation. This is not a matter peculiar to officials serving the Council of Europe, but applies to any who are involved in international organisations, and it is one which also occurs in the sphere of the United Nations.
I have been thinking this matter over very carefully since last week, because I am anxious to meet the wishes of the Committee if I possibly can. I cannot accept this Amendment for a number of reasons of a drafting character. For instance, since the Committee did not accept the earlier Amendment discussed last week, which mentioned specifically the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, as the Bill now stands there is no reference to the Consultative Assembly in it, and, therefore, the phraseology "the said Consultative Assembly" in this Amendment would not really make sense. That is a matter of drafting.
Then there is the other objection, to which I still adhere, though I appreciate the arguments put up against it by the right hon. Gentleman, that it is not very satisfactory to single out an exemption in relation to rates and taxes and not to refer to any other. It seems to me that 722 there is a much more satisfactory way of dealing with this matter, and a way which I should like to explore further, to see if I can find an appropriate form of words and to insert an Amendment in the Bill in another place. That would be to introduce a proviso limiting the privileges and immunities which can be granted, not only in respect of this one organisation but also in respect of any others covered by the Bill at present or in the future, to what is required for the implementing of our international agreements.
I have given an assurance that we do not intend, in fact, to grant, in respect of any organisation, any greater privileges than those which have been the subject of international agreement in respect of which there has been a measure of reciprocity. I have given that quite categorically, and I do not myself see any disadvantage, indeed, I see some advantages, in incorporating that in the Bill. That would have the advantage that it would cover, not only questions of immunity from rates and taxes, but also any other immunities, and not only the Council of Europe, and, in particular, the Consultative Assembly, but also any other organisations which might conceivably be involved. If any other organisations should be involved at some future date, the privileges in relation to their staffs could only be covered by Order in Council giving privileges and immunities sufficient only to cover the international agreements which we have made.
I hope that suggestion will be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman. I will undertake to go into it very carefully. I have not got a form of words to cover it at the moment, but I do not see any reason why we should not find a form of words. Provided that we do, it could be inserted in another place, and I have no doubt that this House would agree to it. I put that forward to the right hon. Gentleman and suggest on that understanding he might be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)
The Minister of State is in a much more amenable frame of mind than he was last week. I wish to ask him a question on immunity from tax. He told the Committee last week that the phrases which referred to immunity from tax were included in the 1944 Act, and that 723 it was because that proved impossible to operate satisfactorily they were not reproduced in the 1946 Act. I should like to know if any specific case has arisen by which any individual covered by the 1944 Act has actually claimed immunity from tax or any other privilege of that nature under the 1946 Act and some question has arisen as to whether or not he is entitled to that immunity?

§ Mr. Younger
I am afraid that I have not the exact details with me, but I believe it concerned the permanent staff of one of the European organizations—it might have been O.E.E.C.—which included British subjects normally considered as resident here but actually stationed in France. I was assured that an instance had arisen in respect not of a British representative simply going to any of these bodies, but of one of the permanent staff which was contributed from this country to the international organisation.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)
It cannot be denied that the proposition of the Minister of State might very materially alter many of the objections which I and other of my hon. Friends have felt to the Bill as it is at present drafted. A point which I should like to make is that the principle that he now suggests is a different one from that upon which the present Bill and the Acts of 1944 and 1946 were drafted. It is a difference of principle in the approach to the problem. The 1944 and 1946 Acts and this Bill have gone on the lines of giving wide powers for the production of Orders in Council and erecting as it were ceilings on immunities and privileges far higher than were intended to be attained under current international obligations. If the Minister of State now proposes that Parliament should merely give power under Orders in Council to fulfil our international obligations in this respect from time to time, I wonder whether it would not be more convenient and more appropriate if that were done in the form of a new Bill since it appears to me that the whole principle of his approach is changed.

§ Mr. Law
It would certainly be ungracious on our part if we did not respond in kind to the concession which the Minister of State has announced. In a moment leave will be asked to withdraw the Amendment. I should just like to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I hope that if, on reflection, the Government discover that the concession has the wider implications suggested by my hon. Friend, they will not shrink if necessary from withdrawing the Bill and introducing another one.

§ Mr. Powell
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.