HC Deb 24 November 1955 vol 546 cc1786-94

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "as" to the end of line 14 and to insert "is necessary to secure reciprocity."

It is perhaps a little unfortunate that the Committee stage of this Bill has been reached at such a relatively late hour, because I think it is significant that since we had our Second Reading debate the Press has taken a great deal of interest in this subject, and a number of comments—all of those that I have seen critical of diplomatic immunity and privilege generally—have appeared in all sections of the Press.

The Committee will appreciate that the object of this Amendment is to increase the powers which are being given to the Executive by this Bill. The Clause with which we are concerned in this short Bill is aimed at enabling the Government, by Order in Council, to withdraw some of the existing immunities from certain diplomatic residents in this country. We hope that the powers that are being given to the Government by this Bill will be fully used, and we are anxious to ensure by this Amendment and by the next Amendment on the Order Paper that the Government shall have increased powers rather than that their powers shall in any way be restricted.

This whole subject is one which considerably irritates and offends public opinion. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us during the Second Reading debate that there were now some 2,500 persons entitled to diplomatic immunity, and that during the last year no fewer than 105 members of the Diplomatic Corps were reported for motoring offences alone. That is a very high percentage. It is over 4 per cent. of those entitled to diplomatic immunity, a much higher percentage than that of all other sections of the community.

While the principle for which diplomatic immunity was originally introduced must be recognised, public opinion today is becoming more and more sensitive about the fact that this increasing number of persons is outside the law, that they are a privileged corps and are entirely shielded by the mantle of diplomatic immunity which protects them from the police, from justice and from liability in both the civil and the criminal court.

We were disturbed to think that in one passage of his statement a fortnight ago, the Joint Under-Secretary of State said he hoped that some other countries would increase the diplomatic immunity which they gave to our representatives in their territories, and that, as a result, it would not be necessary for him to make any extensive use of the powers under this Bill. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman said that we misunderstood him.

We hope that the policy of Her Majesty's Government will not be to increase the ambit of diplomatic immunity, but to reduce it. Speaking for myself, I should prefer to see the Government resort to their powers under this Bill rather than embark upon a course of trying to persuade other countries to increase the immunity from minor and unnecessary matters that British diplomats enjoy abroad.

I trust that the Minister will have been influenced by the volume of public opinion that has manifested itself since the Second Reading debate, will be able to tell us that the Government will respond, will try to do something to curtail the diplomatic immunity enjoyed by foreign diplomats in this country, and will not worry if, as a result, our representatives abroad also have to observe the ordinary laws of the land to which they are accredited.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton)

This is a very narrow Amendment, and it might be helpful if I deal with it at once. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) recommended it as having the object of increasing the powers given under the Bill. I am advised that these words would not increase those powers but would restrict them, and make it far less likely that we should be able to introduce Orders. If the hon. Member will refer to the Bill he will see that once we find that the immunities accorded to foreign missions exceed those accorded to ours we can act, as appears to Her Majesty to be proper. The hon. Member is asking us to alter the wording to make it read as is necessary to secure reciprocity. The word "proper" is broader than "necessary," and instead of the action requiring only to "appear to be" proper, under the Amendment proof would be required of its necessity. I hope for that reason that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

He quoted a figure which I mentioned, of 105 cases regarding motor vehicles. That figure did not refer to cases which would have been brought to court but cases in which a complaint had been made. He said that 4 per cent. was a very high percentage. If he will refer to the publication, "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles," issued on 2nd November this year—which is the most recent one—he will find that in respect of the five million licensed motor vehicles in this country, there were offences, or alleged offences, in connection with 608,640—which is 11½ per cent. That fact should be given, in fairness to the foreign missions in this country. Their proportion of offences, or alleged offences, is 4 per cent., whereas over the whole country it is 11½ per cent.

The hon. Member also referred to a passage in my speech when I said that I hoped that an increase of immunities would be accorded to our representatives. I was there alluding to certain of our missions abroad where no immunities are granted, or very few, and where that absence of immunities interferes with the conduct of our officials in their representation of this country. I am quite certain that the hon. Member would share my view that in those cases, and in those missions, if we can increase the facilities to our diplomats we shall be helping men who are serving their country in very good stead. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. E. Fletcher

In view of what the Minister has said, I certainly should not desire to press the Amendment. I hope, nevertheless, that on the question of drafting he will—perhaps with the assistance of the Solicitor-General—consider whether some combination of the words in the Clause and those in the Amendment might not secure the objective that I had in mind, and from which he did not appear to differ in principle. It might perhaps be best to make the Clause read: … as appear to Her Majesty to be proper in order to secure reciprocity. I am, however, quite content to leave that matter to the Minister.

With regard to the last few sentences of his speech, I think I can speak not only for myself but for my hon. Friends in saying that I should be anxious to ensure that in those countries where our accredited representatives have no diplomatic privileges steps should be taken to ensure that they are given them.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens (Blyth)

I should not have intervened in this debate but for the speech made by the Joint Under-Secretary, as I understand that the Government are anxious that we should rise at a reasonable time. I must come back to the points he has made, which arise also out of the speech he made on Second Reading, that the percentage of those in the Diplomatic Corps who contravened the law was 4 per cent. as against 11 per cent. in the population as a whole.

I am surprised at the brief supplied to the right hon. Gentleman. Surely the Foreign Office is aware that from the people serving here from other countries as members of the Diplomatic Corps we expect a very much higher standard of conduct than from the population of the country as a whole. These people are specially selected and trained, and have a special education and special advantages, and 4 per cent.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Order."] Was it not out of order then, Sir Rhys, for the right hon. Gentleman to raise this matter? I should never have intervened had he not done so.

The Deputy-Chairman

I did not call the right hon. Gentleman to order.

Mr. Robens

I thought I was being called to order, Sir Rhys.

It is wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to come here time after time, trying to prove that if someone does something wrong in the Diplomatic Corps it is somehow all right. It is a little more of the cover-up. It is not all right. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stupid."] It is not stupid either. It is stupid for right hon. Gentlemen who occupy political posts as heads of Ministries to fail to do their jobs. It is not right for them to be complacent about 4 per cent. and say that it compares well with the 11 per cent. of the population. We are comparing a selected group against the whole population. I deplore that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to raise this matter again in this Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert: (2) If it appears to Her Majesty that the personal immunities conferred by law on the envoys of foreign sovereign Powers accredited to Her Majesty, their families and servants, and members of the official staff of such envoys and their families exceed in any respect those necessary for the due performance by any envoy of a foreign sovereign Power of his diplomatic responsibilities, Her Majesty may by Order in Council withdraw the said personal immunities to such extent and in respect of such classes of persons as appears to Her Majesty to be proper. I hope that the Minister will not say that this Amendment does other than increase the powers in the Bill. It is designed to give the Crown additional powers. The previous Amendment to subsection (1) was designed to secure reciprocity between this country and other countries. The object of this Amendment is totally different. It is to give the Government the power to overhaul all the personal immunities and privileges which foreign diplomats enjoy here and to see whether they are necessary for the due performance of the diplomatic responsibility of the envoy in question.

There is an obvious need for ambassadors, and perhaps their staffs and families, to have such freedom from unnecessary proceedings as will enable them to perform their diplomatic missions, but we cannot see any justification for putting them beyond the law in respect of matters which cannot possibly affect their work. In that connection motoring offences are a good example. Can it really be said that it is necessary for the performance of his duties by an ambassador, his secretary or his footman, that if they commit some motoring offence, such as a parking offence, they should be immune from the ordinary threat of punishment or remonstrance by the courts? Is it necessary for them to have that protection to enable them to fulfil their diplomatic mission? I should think it a proposition that needed only to be stated to be seen clearly to be one that could not be defended.

There is no doubt at all that these privileges are an irritant, and an increasing irritant because of the increasingly large number of people who enjoy them. I hope, therefore, that as the Amendment merely gives the Government additional powers which they will be free to use or not as they think fit, the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able to accept it.

Mr. Turton

The effect of the Amendment is, as the hon. Gentleman has explained, to leave it to the Government to define what immunities and privileges are necessary for the discharge of diplomatic functions. It would give us a power which is contrary to international law, which prescribes that certain privileges and immunities shall be granted. The only sound basis on which we can refuse to grant immunities is the failure by the other country concerned to grant the required immunities to members of our missions. That is precisely the power which we have already taken in subsection (1), and that is precisely the recommendation that is made by the Somervell Committee.

I face the Committee with this difficulty. If the Committee accepts the Amendment, then for the first time in history it will be asking the Government to break international law in this respect. Let us see exactly what happens. The only countries that can be affected are the countries which at present are granting the immunities prescribed by international law. There are certain countries which have very different conceptions of justice from our own country and which do give at the moment the full immunities prescribed by international law. Directly this Amendment is agreed to, if it is, it will be an encouragement to those countries to make their own interpretation of what is and what is not international law. I would warn the Committee that it would be extremely difficult for our missions in those certain countries—I had to give a warning in a rather different sense on the last Amendment—if we suddenly depart from the basis of what is prescribed by international law.

I recognise perfectly well the desire of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) to try to reduce the immunities. I think they know that the Government share that view, and are trying to implement it, in a seemly way, by this Bill. What surprises me is that attached to the Amendment is the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), because if ever there was a provision that was provocative in character it is this Amendment. The Committee will remember that on Second Reading the hon. and learned Gentleman made this remark: The Bill may be the beginning of a vicious circle which may react upon ourselves and inflict damage upon our own ambassadorial services in other countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 94.] He wrote a most interesting letter to The Times.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned me. Does he remember that I took the precaution of writing a letter to him, in which I asked him three questions. One was: what are the circumstances out of which the Bill arises at this particular moment? Two, at whom is the Bill aimed? Three, if diplomatic immunities have been reduced or extended, please let me have particulars. Perhaps my intervention is rather long, but I did seek to rise after my hon. Friend moved his first Amendment, and I was precluded from speaking because he unexpectedly withdrew his Amendment. The point I want to put is that the whole idea of the Amendment was to bring about reciprocity.

The Deputy-Chairman

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is intervening to put a question that is one thing, but I rather think he is going on to make his own speech.

Mr. Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to mention me personally, and to give way.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. and learned Gentleman can have an opportunity afterwards to make his own speech in answer, if he wishes to.

Mr. Turton

I was only hoping it would be realised that this particular Amendment is provocative in character. Knowing the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, does not want this Bill to be provocative in character, I hope that he would not wish to support this Amendment.

As I have said, Her Majesty's Government are anxious to do all they can to secure, by methods of international law, a reduction in diplomatic immunities. We believe the right way is by Clause 1 (1). We also think we should inquire to see whether, by negotiation and agreement, we can proceed towards a reduction in the numbers of those enjoying diplomatic immunities afforded. We are ready to make inquiries to see by what means we can reach that end. It may be best to proceed by way of agreement with particular countries, or perhaps inquiries should be raised in some international organisation. But we will undertake, when this Bill goes through, to see what we can do towards prosecuting that end, because I believe that in this matter there is really no great difference of opinion between the two sides. I hope, in view of that, and as the right hon. Gentleman has no wish to transgress rules of international law which we have been very careful to keep to in all our history, the hon. Member for Islington, East, would be prepared to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. E. Fletcher

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, which I cordially welcome, I gladly say that I shall not press this Amendment. In fact, I think the statement that the Minister has made is an important one, and a considerable advance on anything which was said on Second Reading. It is, in my view, a notable response to the suggestions that we have made, and I am sure it would be very generally welcomed, not only on these benches, but throughout the House, and by the public generally. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.