IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

HC Deb 12 December 1960 vol 632 cc126-39

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.—[Mr. Godber.]

7.58 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)

The Minister has formally moved the Order. I entirely accept the necessity of this type of Order. Once we are committed, as a matter of general policy, to closer co-operation with other countries, and once the logic of history makes such a general trend in our policy absolutely inevitable, so must we, quite obviously, accept what are the consequences of that closer co-operation. At the same time, I do not think that we should pass these Orders purely formally without spending a very short time considering in the case of each of them where they are leading us.

This is an Order under the 1950 Act, and, in so far as I can judge, in common form. It seems to give the type of immunities which we have given to a number of similar international organisasations over the last few years, particularly since the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950 was passed. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell us, in very general terms how many of these Orders have been laid.

To give the Minister time to derive the information from the appropriate quarter, I will continue by saying that the effect of each of them is, after all, to place a certain number of individuals and organisations—individuals resident in this country and organisations the headquarters or the branches of which are situated in this country—above the law. I do not want to rehearse the somewhat trite questions which are frequently put about driving motor cars in the streets of the cities of this country without having to encounter the normal consequences which ensue as a result of negligence in the case of ordinary British citizens. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that the effect of these Orders is to place a growing number of persons above the law and to give to them privileges in the face of the law not accorded to ordinary British citizens.

As I said at the outset, I quite accept that this is inevitable, necessary and indeed useful. It is an incident in the closer activity which binds us with other countries, not only in the continent of Europe, but in many other continents. The Minister should give us a little more information on these lines so that we can see in general terms how many people can move about the streets of our great cities and say to themselves—with a feeling, no doubt, of greater or less satisfaction—that accidents which may occur in a legal sense to others cannot occur to them because they are invested with an immunity which accrues to them because they are the members of these organisations.

I should like the hon. Gentleman to satisfy me on these points, but I say in advance that, unless his answer is quite surprising, I should advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to offer no opposition to this Order.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

I feel the same anxieties as have been expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I remember the passing of this enabling Act in 1950. As soon as it was through we had a proliferation of these Orders which have never ceased.

I remember when an Order of this character, introducing immunities and privileges for the Universal Postal Union, was introduced into the House in July, 1960. At that time, the right hon. and learned Member was a member of the Government, for the party opposite was in power. We had a very much better attended debate than this. We as an Opposition were more zealous in our defence of the liberty of the subject than is Her Majesty's present Opposition. We had a long debate about it and the Motion was then passed.

Sir F. Soskice

Would the hon. Member be so good as to comment on the attendance on the Government side of the House as well as the attendance of the Opposition?

Mr. Ronald Bell

Like a good soldier. I never look behind. What I see in front does not encourage me.

That Motion was passed and it went to another place where the same anxieties about this spread were expressed. I dare say that the right hon. and learned Member will remember the strange outcome on that occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Jowitt, who was then on the Woolsack, associated himself with just the sort of anxieties which the right hon. and learned Member has expressed this evening, and the Motion was withdrawn in another place.

When we came back in October after the Summer Recess, we had the extraordinary experience of a Motion being introduced to cancel the Motion which we had passed in July approving one of these orders. At that time, the events I have just described were merely indicative of the widespread anxiety which was felt as a result of the series of Orders coming out consequent upon the passing of the Act of 1950.

Those anxieties were shared equally on both sides of the House, by ourselves of the Conservative Party, then in opposition, and by the party opposite, then in power. I look back to that happening, because I am appalled at the way in which these things keep slipping through late at night, with no one any longer bothering very much. What happened after that row was that time was given for the whole thing to die down. Now the Orders are coming out again.

If I may turn to the two Orders before us this evening—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

Order. We are dealing with only one Order at the moment.

Mr. Ronald Bell

The point I was about to make, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is, in fact, common to both Orders, so I think that I might inadvertently have been in order. I believe that we are dealing with the Customs Co-operation Council Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No, the International Atomic Agency Order.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Unfortunately, this point is common to both Orders and is now becoming general. It is the immunity given in respect of experts. We used to have immunity in respect of officers of the body which was being given these privileges. In Part II of the Order, immunity is given to representatives. Part III goes a stage further and gives immunity to officers, that is, the executive people of the organisation as distinct from the controlling body. Now we are going further, for Part IV gives immunity to persons on missions, which means the experts employed by the Agency.

This is getting a little too much. I do not doubt that it is authorised by the Act, but this wide immunity is not just as to papers and archives, which may be necessary. I can quite see that the documents should be immune, but the general immunity from detention and arrest—and, in broad terms, from giving an account of themselves—is now to be for people who are not members of the body at all, but are merely employed as experts, perhaps members of committees or sub-committees of experts set up by the body. That is carrying diplomatic immunity to a quite preposterous length.

I appreciate that we have only one Order before us, but perhaps it will be in order for me to say that I should not mind it quite so much if it appeared only once in one single Order. I find it appearing now rather as a matter of course and I do not think that this Order should pass without the attention of the House being drawn to the gradual extension of the area over which this privilege is enjoyed, as well as to the multiplication of the bodies which enjoy it.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

It is not my intention unduly to delay the passing of this Order, but I share the concern of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) particularly regarding the immunities and privileges which are to be passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Of course, I am not against the Agency, but very much for it. I am pleased to see that we are getting international co-operation on the problem of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, but as the hon. Member said, this Order stretches immunity to a very wide field of officers, representatives and persons on missions, and possibly also to some families. Cmnd. 1176, which governs this Order, gives an indication in Section 20 that the Director-General of the Agency, his wife and children shall also be granted immunity and privileges. It goes on to say that anyone acting on his behalf and that person's wife and family have immunity.

Later, it is rather hazy and it would be enlightening if the Joint Under-Secretary could tell us how many members of the Agency other than the Director-General and perhaps someone acting on his behalf in this country might have the same privileges and immunities for their wives and families.

I feel some concern about this, and I should like to know whether we have an initial list. Has the International Atomic Energy Agency put forward to the Government an initial list of the people who will require immunity? How many countries are members of the Agency? How big will the list be? The House ought to be told how many people will receive these special privileges before the Order is passed.

Secondly, I draw the Minister's attention to Article III, Sections 3 and 4, of the Agreement contained in Cmnd. 1176. The Sections refer to the property and assets of the agency which are also to be the subject of special immunity. This perturbs me, and I want to know what we mean by "property". We have passed a number of Bills to ensure that we have very stringent precautions in the transport of radioactive materials and substances in this country. The position may arise, when the International Atomic Energy Agency set up its department here, in which representatives assist or are even in charge of the transport of radioactive materials within this country.

This is an international body, and a lot of material will be moved in and out of the country, particularly for experiments. We ought to know to what extent a person in charge of the transport of radioactive materials or substances or isotopes is not to be interfered with if we think that the safety precautions being used in that transport do not equal those which we require of our own Atomic Energy Authority and Central Electricity Generating Board.

The hon. Member will see that Article III, Section 4, refers to the premises, and that these are to be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action. These are very strong words to be written into an Agreement to be approved by the House. How privileged will these premises be? As the International Atomic Energy Agency grows, it is likely that the United Kingdom may be a testing ground for some nuclear experiments and, especially following the accident at Windscale, after which special committees were set up to introduce regulations governing safety within these premises and the health of the employees there, we ought to be sure that the Agency will not escape the stringent precautions which we have established in this country.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that where the Government or the Atomic Energy Authority think that the precautions taken within establishments developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as it grows in this country, are not as stringent as our precautions, we shall have power to step in and raise those safety standards? Or can he give an assurance that the safety standards and the precautions to be taken when transporting radioactive materials in this country will always be as high as those which we have asked the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board to maintain?

8.14 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber)

May I reply to the debate, with the leave of the House? I did not wish to show any discourtesy when I moved the Motion formally, but I thought it would be more helpful, if hon. Members wished to intervene, that I should first know the point with which they wished me to deal. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), and his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, (Mr. Mason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for their comments. I hope that I can allay their fears a good deal about this Order.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how many such Orders have been made. I have not the exact figure, but I am told that since the passing of the Act there have been between 15 and 20 Orders. It is difficult to give the number of people to whom they applied because this varies very much with different Orders, but the number of people to whom this Order will apply will be very small indeed. The headquarters of this Agency is in Vienna, and it has no resident staff in the United Kingdom. It is, however, probable that some officials entitled to immunity will occasionally come to this country on visits. It is not expected that any conferences will be held here, but, if they were, the representatives and their staffs attending the conference would be entitled to immunuity.

Those are all the people likely to be affected, except for the persons on missions. The likelihood is that there will be very few, if any, persons on missions in this country, because this organisation will deal largely with safeguards set down by itself in relation to such matters as equipment and enriched fuel which are supplied to agencies of the organisation in different countries. Their staff will be responsible for seeing that the appropriate safeguards are enforced in those countries. As it happens, we are more likely to be supplying other countries than to be receiving; we might receive in certain circumstances, but they would be very remote.

The reason for introducing the Order is that we felt that we had to accede to the normal requirements of the organisation; we are members of it and have pledged ourselves fully to support it, and it would have looked very odd if we had not done so. A few officials may occasionally visit this country for discussions, but it is unlikely that any of the problems will arise which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley, because we are a supplying country rather than a receiving country. I think that I can give him fair assurances on the points which he raised. I do not think that the points which he made on Sections 3 and 4 of Article III will apply to any extent in this country. The Agency's properties and assets will not include any atomic materials in this country; I give him that assurance.

I know the zeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South in watching these matters, and I understand the point which he has made and the feeling which he has expressed. It is right that the House should watch very carefully any extensions of diplomatic immunity, but I hope that what I have said about the number concerned in this Order will assure him that, like the housemaid's baby, it is very small indeed. I know that that is cold comfort to him, with his legal approach to the matter. I cannot explain the second Order at this stage, but I have an equally satisfactory answer when that Order is discussed.

It would have been wrong for us not to accede to the normal requirements of privileges and immunities for this body, as for others, because we wish to see it established as an important body safeguarding these problems in the use of atomic energy. We want to strengthen its position as much as possible. It is more for that reason than any other that we have introduced the Order. It will apply to a very few people, and its application will be fairly remote. I hope that, with that explanation, the House will accept the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.

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

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Customs Co-operation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November. Perhaps I may deal with the points raised in relation to this Order by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). As regards the experts to which he referred, the officers, this Order merely replaces a very similar Order laid in 1954. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend spoke with some strength and vigour against that Order too. This Order merely makes a few drafting Amendments, in the main, to the Order laid in 1954 and it does not extend privileges at all. It merely brings this particular Instrument into line with the general run of these Instruments dealing with international immunities and privileges. It is not an extension but an amending Order.

In addition to the purely verbal Amendments which have been made, the Order now contains a description of the categories of officers enjoying privileges under Article 10. The corresponding Article of the 1954 Order, which was, I think, Article 12, did not include this. It is common form, and we have brought it in in this way.

The council, which has headquarters at Brussels, employs about 30 persons on its international staff, seven of whom are United Kingdom nationals. Out of this small number, no more than half a dozen would be likely to attend in the event of a meeting of the Council or of any of its committees taking place in the United Kingdom. No meeting of this kind has taken place here yet, nor, so far as can be foreseen, will it ever do so. I hope, therefore, that the House will find no difficulty in approving this Order which, as I say, extends immunities not at all. It merely brings the matter into line.

8.22 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice

I believe that some Legislatures have a very convenient system whereby members of the Legislature may, as it were, file their speeches without actually delivering them. At this juncture, it would certainly be convenient to me and, I imagine, to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), if we could do that and if the Minister, equally, could file the reply he gave on the occasion of our last debate.

What the Minister said about this Order being really so innocuous and ineffective made me suspect it. I always suspect enactments which are said to be for drafting purposes. It is a description which is extremely convenient when we do not quite know what they do, and it makes one suspect that they do something which might be rather difficult to explain. Far be it from me to impute such an intention to the Minister. I am quite sure that if this Order did, in fact, do something he would tell us at once. In effect the hon. Gentleman has told us that it does nothing.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what are the drafting Amendments? He said that the present Order does embody a description of officers which was lacking in the previous Order. The other drafting Amendments, I gather, are purely verbal, but, of course, words may have great effect in this imperfect world. A word can start a war and a word can make peace. Simply to say that the Amendments are verbal does not, at any rate to my mind, import quite the reassurance which I should like to have.

I point to the fact, to which the hon. Gentleman himself adverted, that there was, apparently, a perfectly good Order made in 1954. It has weathered the storms until 1960. Now, at long last, apparently, it has tottered and it is beginning to fall; it needs replacement. I am sure the Minister will recognise the justice of what I say. I hope that he will tell us in a few words, if the House gives him leave to speak again, why the old Order is to be replaced. What, broadly speaking, are the drafting changes that are being made?

The word "drafting" is one which I used very often when I occupied a place on the bench on which the Minister now sits, and I am very suspicious about it. If he will give us a general idea of why it is necessary to replace the old with the new, I, speaking for myself, would feel considerably reassured. I hope that he will do that. I say in advance that, unless his answer contains some feature which wholly startles me, I can see very little reason for opposing this Order, as I could see very little reason for opposing the last.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell

I am not in the same position as the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), whose conscience makes him suspicious of much that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said. But I am bound to agree that the expression "verbal amendments" does not bring much reassurance to any of the despised tribe of lawyers, because we all know that all amendments are verbal and some verbal amendments can be very important and significant indeed. Therefore, although this debate does have some of the character of chasing the Minister round the Dispatch Box, I think that we must ask him to tell us a little more about the amendments.

My hon. Friend has said that the material change in this Order from the 1954 Order is that it describes the categories of officers who might benefit from the immunities and privileges. Should I be unduly suspicious if I hazarded the guess that it enlarges the categories of officers who may benefit? Will my hon. Friend help me about that? I know I have a suspicious mind, but I am inclined to think, when a 1954 Order is replaced by a 1960 Order and there are changes of definition, that the 1960 definitions are quite likely to be wider than the 1954 definitions.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm the impression, which his speech left on my mind, that the experts were included in the 1954 Order. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I received the impression from him that it is. If they were not, then, of course, I should want to look at the Order very carefully indeed.

I am sorry that, by continuing to speak, I am distracting my hon. Friend's attention from the points he must be trying to elucidate in order to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself.

Generally, although I plead guilty to having missed the 1954 Order and not opposed it, as I ought to have done, I do not in any way feel estopped thereby from saying now what, perhaps, I should have said then. I cannot understand why a Customs Co-operation Council cannot do its work of co-operating about Customs duties without enjoying diplomatic immunity for its members, its servants and its experts.

I should have thought that this was one of those rather mild and peaceful occupations which, though no doubt controversial, do not partake of the nature of an International Atomic Energy Agency. It is not one of those matters in which there could be secrecy or high political considerations. Why cannot people get together to discuss Customs arrangements without having the paraphernalia of immunity from the ordinary law which this Order provides?

I should not be a bit surprised if the Universal Postal Union to which I referred in my speech on the previous Order has now been accorded just this immunity which Parliament refused to it in 1950 precisely on the ground that people really ought to be able to talk about postal arrangements without having diplomatic immunity. I feel the same about these Customs arrangements. One does not want to refuse reasonable facilities to people, and I personally would never feel very reluctant to give complete immunity to the documents of any international body coming here to negotiate.

But I do not see why there should be this total and absolute exemption from all the processes, criminal and civil, of the law in respect of their property and everything else. It seems to me to be taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. The exemptions are far too ample for this class of organisation. I know that the Order has been in existence since 1954, but I do not think that it should have been. Now that it is being renewed, I take this opportunity of reiterating my objections to this extension of diplomatic privilege to bodies which are not apt to enjoy it.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Godber

If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, may I say I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), for their comments on this Order. I assure them that I am not seeking, as it were, to pull a fast one over them in any way. I note that my hon. Friend returned to the main theme, and I can quite understand his views. As I pointed out, we are not seeking to extend immunities in this Order in any way.

Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend asked me to specify more precisely what the amendments are, why they are being made and to say why it was necessary to bring in this Order at all. The reason why we have brought in a fresh Order is that there has been criticism by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which criticised a similar Article to that to which I referred—Article 12 of the old Order—in the draft Council of Europe Order, 1957. It was because of the criticisms made by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments that we are seeking to bring this into line with these other Orders which have now been made.

The particular amendment, and I think the only one of substance, which appears in the present Order as Article 10, relates to other officials of the Council, who appeared in the previous Order in Article 12 and who were specified. The Order provided: Except in so far as in any particular case any privilege or immunity is waived by the Secretary General or the Council, all officials of the Council of any category specified by the Council shall enjoy:— It then set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) the immunities which they enjoy. In the previous case, it provides: Except in so far as any immunity or privilege is waived by the Secretary-General, officers of the Council of all categories other than those specified in Article 9 of this Order shall enjoy"— and it then sets out the particular provisions. In that case it says all the categories other than those specified in Article 9. In the present one, it is all officials of the Council or any of the categories specified by the Council. I am reading the wrong Order; it is the 1960 Order which says "all categories other than those specified." The 1954 Order says "all officials of the Council of any category specified by the Council."

Mr. Ronald Bell

Is my hon. Friend quoting from Article 12?

Mr. Godber

No, from Article 10 in the new Order, or Article 12 in the old Order. I apologise. All these particular individuals are in any case specified in the list which is provided, and it is the same individuals who are concerned. It is merely a change in the method of description and it is no extension whatever. The reason why it happens to be Article 10 where in the old Order it is Article 12, is that we have telescoped Articles 9 and 10 of the old Order into Article 9, which embraces both the Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General, who had a separate Article each before. This is what I referred to when I was talking about small verbal amendments.

I do not pretend to any legal knowledge myself, but I am assured that we are making no other extensions of any kind in this Order, and it is solely because of the criticism of the form of the Article in the other Order by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments that we have made the alteration which we have made.

I hope that that goes some way to meeting the doubts of both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend. If there are any other points which they would like clarified perhaps it would be safer for me to undertake to answer them in writing, because I do not claim to be an expert in legal draftsmanship.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Customs Co-operation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.

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