HC Deb 26 July 1956 vol 557 cc762-7

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 17th July.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

Surely we are to have a word of explanation about this important matter from somebody on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)

Where is the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

9.35 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft)

This Order is one which, I think, will commend itself to the House generally. It is designed to give the necessary immunities to the International Tin Council. That Council has been set up in this country for the purpose of establishing a buffer stock which will—or it is hoped will—provide stability in that important international commodity. If one is to invite an international council to establish itself in this country it is not unreasonable that, for the purposes of Income Tax and privileges, the members of the Council should be given the ordinary diplomatic immunities which are accorded to members of international councils of this kind—I think that the Wheat Council is an example in point—and which are reciprocally granted to our nationals in other countries.

From time to time these matters have, I know, been debated in the House, and have sometimes led to controversy, but I feel that the House may well take the view that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that London should be the centre of a great international council such as this. Malaya is one of the principle producers of this commodity. London historically is the centre of the international tin market. I think it would be a loss to us if the International Tin Council were not established here. In the negotiations which led to its establishment in London it became clear that unless we could extend the ordinary diplomatic immunities we should not have this privilege.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I know the House admires the resourcefulness and the ingenuity of the President of the Board of Trade, and I am sure that his hon. and right hon. Friends will congratulate him on the way he has stepped into the breach tonight, but it certainly is most unusual that a Motion of this kind, generally sponsored by someone from the Foreign Office, should be explained by the President of the Board of Trade.

This is, as the President realises, I am sure, essentially a Motion arising from international obligations, and one of a sort which is sponsored, as a rule, by the Foreign Secretary. It is very difficult for my hon. Friends and me, who want to put a number of questions to a representative of the Foreign Office, to find that that representative is not in his place.

I do not quarrel with the President of the Board of Trade. We have the greatest admiration for him, in the various duties he discharges arising out of his office, but I feel—and I have had occasion to say this before—that it is a little hard on the right hon. Gentleman that he should have to become the handyman of the Government, to deal with all kinds of miscellaneous duties, and that he should be expected, at very short notice—

Mr. Hoy

Without notice.

Mr. Fletcher

Yes, without any notice at all—to step into the breach, without any preparation, and unexpectedly have to speak to this Motion, which he was not prepared to do. I have no doubt that in due course an explanation of the matter will be given—

Mr. Hoy

And an apology.

Mr. Fletcher

—and an apology by someone from the Foreign Office. I must say, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, that this is not exactly how we expect Ministers from the Foreign Office to treat the House. A number of us have been waiting here a long time in anticipation of the kind of debate we often have on matters such as this.

The President of the Board of Trade says that it is logical for the International Tin Council to be located here in London. I do not quarrel with that observation at all. Obviously, the International Tin Council must be located somewhere, and I am inclined to think that it is just as well for it to be located in London as anywhere else.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

In Glasgow.

Mr. Fletcher

It might well be more appropriately located in Glasgow. The President of the Board of Trade might bear that in mind.

We on this side of the House always scrutinise Orders of this kind with a great deal of care. We have had occasion to express the view in the past that there has been a tendency to introduce a disproportionately high number of Orders of this kind conferring diplomatic privileges of one kind or another on an increasing number of people. While we all wish to respect international obligations, I do not want the President of the Board of Trade, or the representatives of the Foreign Office, to think that there is no limit to the patience of the British public about the way in which an increasing number of peoples are relieved from the ordinary legal obligations of the people who live in these islands.

There are one or two very special and unusual features of this Order which make me feel that we should be given some explanation by the Foreign Office. I notice, for example, that Article 3 states: The Council shall have the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, other than taxes on the importation of goods, as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power. As far as I am aware, that is a form of words for which there is no exact precedent.

The President of the Board of Trade invited us rather to assume that members of this Council would have complete diplomatic immunity. As far as I understand, that is not the case. This Order is not intended to confer the same kind of complete diplomatic immunity as is enjoyed by other people. It confers exemption from certain obligations—something less than full diplomatic immunity. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should explain to the House, so that the public may know, why this Order is so different in kind from other Orders of a somewhat similar nature which we have been asked to approve in recent months.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I should like, first, to know whether the Order applies to Scotland, and, secondly, to ask a question about Article 3, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has just referred. My hon. Friend did not ask what are the exemptions to which reference was made. He quoted the article which states that the Council shall have the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, … as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power. Is it not a fact that those exemptions vary and that some sovereign Powers have one set of exemptions and others another set? Should not that article be clarified in such a way as to indicate which foreign Powers are referred to and which set of exemptions and reliefs? It is not at all clear, either in the Order or in the Explanatory Note. The Minister should make that clear before we deal further with the Order. More particularly, I repeat that I should like to know whether the Order affects Scotland and, if so, how.

9.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope)

I am sorry that I was not here when this discussion began. There was no discussion on the previous item on the Order Paper. I am not saying that as an excuse, but that was why I was not here.

I do not quite follow the question of the hon. and" learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) about Scotland, because this Order applies to the International Tin Council and not to Scotland.

Mr. Hector Hughes

I can well understand the Minister not being able to follow my question, because apparently the whole Government Front Bench were taken by surprise by the speed with which this Order was reached, I do not want to embarrass them in any way, but the House should have some explanation, so that we know what we are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East referred to Article 3, which provides that: The Council shall have the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, … as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power. What foreign sovereign Power? My point is that these vary. Some sovereign Powers have one set of exemptions and reliefs—

Mr. Speaker

The intervention of the hon. and learned Member is longer than his speech. He is really making a second speech, which is not in order.

Mr. Hughes

On a point of order, Sir. I rose to make these observations, which you are good enough to describe as a speech, because the Minister said he did not understand the questions I put to him in my first observations, and I am endeavouring to clarify them.

Mr. Speaker

With great respect to the hon. and learned Member, I do not think that he was clarifying them at all.

Lord John Hope

To help the hon. and learned Gentleman, may I tell him that this Order applies to the International Tin Council, wherever it be. I hope that that will help him.

The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) asked me about Article 3. The answer to his question is that this agreement not to levy taxation is an agreement which holds by general international usage. It is not correct that it is used in some cases and not used in others. It is universal. I think that was the question he had in mind?

Mr. E. Fletcher

I hope I shall not be trespassing on your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if I, like my hon. and learned Friend, try to explain to the representative of the Foreign Office, who, unfortunately, could not be here when his business was called, the points which are troubling us on this matter. He has asked me to repeat what I have said. I will willingly do so, provided, Sir, that I am within the bounds of order. I thought I had explained the matter fully, and I apologise to hon. Members who were present for repeating what I said. For the benefit of the Minister, what I was saying was that this Order is of a totally different kind from other Orders which this House has been asked to pass, and it seems to me improper that the Foreign Office should treat it as a matter of no consequence and come here without any explanation as to why it is in a totally different form from other Orders conferring diplomatic immunity which in the past we have been asked to approve.

Mr. J. C. Forman (Glasgow, Springburn)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

My understanding is that the noble Lord has the Floor of the House.

Lord John Hope

I am not sure as to how far back the hon. Gentleman is referring, but the reason is that this Order is an attempt to meet the wishes of the House, which have been expressed strongly on many occasions, that these immunities should not go as far as they have gone in the past. That is the explanation, and I hope that the answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forman

Could we have your assistance, Sir? The occupants of the Government Front Bench do not seem to be very clear on how this matter affects Scotland. Could we have the assistance of the Scottish Office in order to clear up this point, because so far we have not had it cleared up?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that this Order stands in the name of any Scottish Minister. It seems to me to be a United Kingdom one. I do not think that there is anything particularly Scottish about it. I do not see any Scottish Minister volunteering to speak on the matter, so I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 17th July.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.