HC Deb 28 March 1968 vol 761 cc1848-64
Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, after 'ships' to insert 'or aircraft'.

Here the Government may have benefited to a small extent from the Opposition's taking advice from the Clerks a little earlier than they did. I understand that none of the Government Amendments would be effective if the Title were not also amended. I therefore have much pleasure in moving the Amendment in the confident knowledge that the Government will have to accept it for otherwise their Amendments will fall.

Mr. Rodgers

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It now seems that this is a joint Bill, and I hope that the generosity with which the hon. Gentleman has helped it forward at this stage will persist in the short time ahead of us.

Amendment agreed to.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill is designed to introduce a further element of order into one aspect of relations between Governments. In a rather disordered world we cannot provide for the occasion when all the rules are ignored and conventional standards of international behaviour break down. We cannot make other Governments behave in a civilised manner if they are determined not to do so. It is inevitable that the Bill must be seen within those limits.

Enabling consuls more easily to carry out their proper functions helps the increasing number of people from this country who travel abroad either for business or pleasure. The Bill concerns the work of consular representatives of other countries in the United Kingdom. I said on Second Reading that the essential principle is one of reciprocity. We have had useful discussions on the details of the Bill at earlier stages and a number of constructive points have been made. I hope very much that we can now send it on its way.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

We welcomed this Bill on Second Reading, we welcome it now and wish it a fairly speedy passage. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is founded on the principle of reciprocity, and in what I have to say I shall simply be insisting that we must make the reciprocity genuine and real.

I start with several questions, some of which were raised in Committee and which I know the hon. Gentleman will wish to answer. As I understand it, when the Bill receives the Royal Assent, the provisions of the Vienna Convention will be brought into effect as far as foreign consuls in this country are concerned after a period of 13 days has elapsed from the deposit of the United Kingdom Certificate of Ratification. How many other countries will also have bound themselves to the Convention at that time?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also consider letting the House have a list of which countries they are. I ask this because it is only right that Parliament should know whether we are ahead of or behind the majority of nations in this process of providing reciprocal rights to consuls. We should also know to which countries we shall be extending these new consular privileges and which ones will not enjoy them in Britain.

The second question concerns those countries with which the Government are either negotiating or proposing in future to negotiate further bilateral conventions, such as the Anglo-Polish, the Anglo-Bulgarian and the Anglo-Soviet conventions, for which this Bill makes provision. As I understand it, it is planned, for perfectly good reasons, to arrange in certain cases much wider reciprocal privileges than those the Vienna Convention provides and we would like to know which bilaterals are in prospect.

Another general question concerns the immunities which consular staff will enjoy in this country under this Bill. Some of my hon. Friends will have something to say about these immunities and there are three specific points to which we should be grateful for an answer.

The first concerns consuls' exemption from United Kingdom taxation. Since the Committee stage, we have had the Budget, and the exemptions from taxation under the Bill are therefore worth a good deal more than they were a few weeks ago. As far as consuls are concerned, I might say of the Budget that it is an ill wind which blows nobody some good. Obviously, if we want our own consuls to enjoy tax immunities abroad, we must reciprocally extend these tax exemptions in this country, but the House is entitled to know exactly where the Foreign Office intends to draw the line in regard to the types of taxation from which consular staffs will be immune and also the categories of consular employees who will be able to benefit.

For example, is a foreign consul to be free of Capital Gains Tax if he speculates in the British market? If a consular office purchases land and sells it, will it have to pay levy to the Land Com mission? If a foreign consul has a British wife, as many do, with a large income from investments, will he or she be assessed for the Chancellor's special charge on investment income? I could of course, raise a large number of these tax posers but I am sure that this would not be appropriate since this is not the Finance Bill and the hon. Gentleman and I are not accountants.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman can only raise the various kinds of exemptions that he will find in Article 49 of the Schedule. At this stage he can only discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths

I believe that the points I have mentioned are included—I hope so. I will confine myself to the general proposition that the House ought to have a clear statement of exactly which taxes foreign consuls are to be exempted from. That would be helpful to the consuls themselves. The same applies to the categories of consular employees covered in the Bill who are to enjoy these immunities, not only from tax but from Excise duties, possibly from motoring offences and conceivably, in certain circumstances, from civil suits arising from riots and affrays.

I recognise that reciprocity is the key, but there must be some limit to the extension of privileges in this country. Under the Vienna Convention, which this Bill will extend to consuls in this country, Article 49 extends privileges to: Consular employees and members of their families. Another article of the same Convention defines the Service Staff of consulates as including: Any person employed in the domestic service of a Consular post. That is a very wide definition, and could include a chauffeur, the personal valet, telephonist, secretary, file clerk, gardener, home help, child-minder, and, as the Bill defines it, all their families too. All or many of these people would be entitled under the Bill to considerable Excise and tax exemptions. Accepting the point of reciprocity, what I want the Minister to answer is how will the line be drawn between those who will benefit in a consular staff and those who will not?

I turn now to a matter raised in Committee, namely the question of foreign consul employees who may become involved in breaches of the peace. The case that I have in mind was that involving Members of the Chinese legation who last summer attacked British citizens, including British police, in a celebrated affray. In Committee these gentlemen were described as "club wielding diplomats." What we want to know is, in the event of a British subject being attacked by a consular employee eligible to claim immunity from prosecution under the Convention, to whom does that injured British citizen go for redress of his grievances? Whom does he sue for damages if the consulate or embassy claims diplomatic privilege, as I am told the Chinese either did, or would have done if the matter had been pressed? In Committee the Minister said that the Government can always declare such a "club wielding diplomat" persona non grata. No doubt we can but we do not.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman provide the Committee page number?

Mr. Griffiths

I am afraid that it would take longer than it ought to, but I can assure you that it is there, on several occasions.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

Page number 11.

Mr. Griffiths

Thank you. We do not always declare a diplomat persona non grata, often for very good reasons. It seems that the police and the courts need clarification on this. It is certainly no good to talk vaguely of reciprocity when, as all the world knows, the rules of diplomatic etiquette are simply not observed in Peking.

The Bill extends privileges to foreign consuls in this country for the purpose of serving their governments in every legitimate fashion. This includes, as it must, the right to provide assistance to nationals of these countries who may fall into distress. We accept this principle wholeheartedly. I have benefited from it personally in Budapest, Jordan and elsewhere. But I hope that we are going to see rather more vigorous efforts being made to ensure that British consuls abroad enjoy the reciprocity that the Vienna Convention lays down. In other words, it is up to the Government, in asking Parliament for these powers, to make sure that the same advantages, including in particular consular access to British citizens detained in foreign gaols, are provided to our missions abroad.

Here, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will mention very briefly two specific cases which we believe are important. The first is that of Mr. Gerald Brooke. He has now been in gaol for two and a half years, and I hope that the Minister will say a further word about this very distressing case. We were told in Committee that the Soviet authorities had said that once this Bill is passed they will provide consular access. I hope very much that this happens and that it will happen soon. But I hope, too, that we are not going to regard it as a concession. As we see it, the British Consul in Moscow has always had the undoubted right of access to Mr. Brooke, even though that has been denied to him, and whether or not this Bill is passed this right of access is something which I believe the Government will want to reiterate very firmly. It is quite monstrous that Mr. Brooke should have been denied this access for so long. I hope, too, that the Government will not simply be satisfied with the consular access that is almost promised by the Soviet authorities if this Bill is passed, but will take the opportunity to press for something more than access—namely, for this man's release.

The second case I want to mention concerns a gentleman, Mr. Watt, who was recently announced to be under arrest in China. The details have been widely publicised and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is planning, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, to fill in some of the details that I shall omit. But there is one point of principle I would put to the Minister. The announcement of Mr. Watt's detention was made on 13th March but it was not made by the Foreign Office: it was made by a Chinese newspaper. This might have been quite understandable had it not been for the fact that the Chinese announcement came almost six months after this British citizen was arrested. By the time the announcement was made, Mr. Watt had already been held without any consular access for a very long time, and the Foreign Office, of course, knew all about it. Yet, for reasons best known to itself, the Foreign Office decided to withhold this information from Parliament and from the public until the Chinese newspaper broke the story. There is a point of principle here on which the Minister will wish to comment, and it is this. To what extent is the Foreign Office justified in withholding information about a British citizen arrested in a foreign country? And, if it is so justified, for how long should the Foreign Office withhold that information?

We accept that this is a matter of the most delicate judgment. On the one hand, there is the proper desire not to compromise any of the intensive behind-the-scenes efforts that are being made to get the man out; that is entirely right and we understand it. But, on the other hand, it cannot be right that British citizens can be thrown into gaol abroad and held for long periods with Parliament and the British public being allowed to know nothing about it unless the arresting authorities—in this case the Chinese—themselves choose to make it public.

The Minister will know that some time ago I wrote to him asking for a list of those British citizens held under arrest abroad and denied access by British consuls. In his reply he refused to provide the information and gave his reasons. He said that it could compromise efforts to obtain their release and that, in certain circumstances, it could cause distress to the relatives. But I ask him to look at this practice whereby a British citizen can virtually sink without trace and no one know anything about it unless some gentleman in the Foreign Office decides that it is safe to make it public. Would we have know about Mr. Watt's detention if the Chinese themselves had not announced it? During the Committee stage, the Minister knew that this man was held, but he did not feel it right to tell us.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Consular Relations Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Griffiths

I think that I have made the point, and I hope that the Minister will feel it right to comment on it.

We welcome the Bill. We accept the principle of reciprocity on which it is based. We believe that it will be of benefit to British consuls and, we hope, to British citizens abroad. That is the main thing. But we want to be sure that it is a genuine and not simply a theoretical or verbal reciprocity. It is not good enough just to pass the necessary legislation and then to apply the doctrine of doing unto others in this country as we hope they will do unto us and our citizens and consuls abroad. It must be a two-way street.

We support the Bill on the understanding that the Government will ensure that in matters concerning British subjects and Her Majesty's consuls abroad the principle shall be that others must do unto us and to our people as we in this country do unto them and their's.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

I should like to refer briefly to the Vienna Convention to which effect is given by the Bill. I refer particularly to Chapter I, Article 5, on page 11 of the Bill. Paragraph (a) provides that the consular's functions shall consist in protecting … the interests of … its nationals … within the limits permitted by international law". Paragraph (i) provides for the representing or arranging appropriate representation for nationals … before the tribunals and other authorities … for the purpose of obtaining, in accodance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests of these nationals … As the background to these provisions, I should like briefly to draw attention to the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. George Watt. I was horrified when I was told last weekend by the mother of Mr. Watt of the circumstances surrounding his case.

Hitherto, I have always looked on the Chinese as a cultured and highly civilised people and, therefore, I was very distressed to hear that this man—an engineer, who had gone to Lanchow, in China, with his firm, Vickers-Zimmer, to help construct a synthetic fibre plant costing £2½million—had been arrested by the Chinese. He had gone to China in December, 1966, and was joined there by his wife in July last year. His wife left him on 7th September, and some days later he was confined under house arrest by the Chinese.

This was at a time when the cultural revolution was at its height and conditions in China were very disturbed. Our mission in Peking had been sacked. Therefore, it is perhaps understandable that our chargé d'affaires was not able to deal effectively with the case. However, since then, I believe that conditions have very much improved in China. Therefore, it distresses me particularly, and the wife and relatives of Mr. Watt, to learn that he has now been charged—five or six months later—with an offence and sentenced to three years imprisonment and yet our consular officials have not been allowed to visit Mr. Watt before or since his conviction. I believe that no communication has been received from him. It has not been possible to ascertain his side of the story. It is not possible for his wife to write to him or to send him, for instance, a food parcel should he need it. Nothing is known about the health or affairs of this constituent of mine and no direct communication has been possible with him since September of last year.

I feel very strongly that this is an example of barbarous and uncivilised action on the part of the Chinese. The charge, I feel, has been trumped up and is completely unfounded. I should like to know from the Minister tonight what steps the Government intend to take in order to put matters right. It has been said—and it was said during the debate on Second Reading—that the Chinese desire to correct the unfortunate image which has been created by the excesses of the Cultural Revolution. I believe that if they are sincere in this, as a token of their desire to improve relations with this country, long-standing trading and cultural relations as well as political relations, which we are dealing with in this Bill, Mr. Watt should be released. His colleague, Mr. Deckart, a German, was released and deported at the time of Mr. Watt's trial.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have profound sympathy with the case the hon. Gentleman is advancing, but he must ask on this Bill for consular access to his constituent, Mr. Watt.

Mr. MacMaster

Of course. I cut short these detailed remarks and ask the Minister if he can ensure that under the terms of this Bill we shall be permitted to have consular access and also that under the provisions of the Geneva Convention, we shall be given details of the charges which were made against Mr. Watt.

I feel—and this has been widely dealt with in the Press and I was particularly interested in an article in The Times which the Minister will have seen—that we must at this stage consider reviewing our commercial and diplomatic relations with China. Obviously, they cannot continue on the present basis. It appears that our consular staff in Pekin are severely restricted and under the heading of reciprocity, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) I feel that we should ourselves consider what reciprocity is appropriate in view of the way in which British citizens are being treated in China. I feel that the minimum courtesies of international behaviour have been ignored in this case, and that a man who was in China for purposes of trade and technical aid to the Chinese should not be subject to treatment in this fashion. I would ask the Minister, therefore, that the normal procedure for the protection of British nationals should be insisted upon in this particular case.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

Before we finally pass this Bill, I would like to ask whether we have any plans for acting under Clauses 2 and 3 which give us t le right to restrict or increase the privilege.> and immunities accorded to consular posts of certain countries.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I have been alarmed by the treatment handed out to Mr. George Watt. I, too, would like to have pressed the Minister to make a statement about the Foreign Office's responsibilities for making known more widely the news of the arrest of a British national abroad. I am not convinced that Mr. Watt is the only British national detained in China today. I have heard of a case which bears some resemblance to that of Mr. Watt, but which is somewhat different.

One knows of the difficult negotiations involved in cases of this sort. A great deal has to be done behind the scenes. However, the Foreign Office also has responsibilities to other British nationals. On the day on which I first heard of the detention in China of this British national, four more businessmen and technicians were going into China with the encouragement of the British Government. One wonders whether they knew before they went about the risks that they were running. In responding to my hon. Friend, I hope that the Minister will recognise that the Foreign Office's responsibility is not only to those in detention but to those who unknowingly put themselves in jeopardy.

Some action under Clauses 2 and 3 would seem to be relevant in the case of the detention of the British pilots in Algeria. It is true that our consular officials managed to obtain access to them and, plainly, a great deal was done to lighten their lot while undergoing this unjust detention. However, I notice that a bill for certain comforts which the pilots obtained has been presented to the company concerned by the Foreign Office. It might have been more acceptable to have withdrawn the financial immunity of the Algerian consular representatives here for two or three days to claw back the money spent on books, magazines, fruit and so on, rather than sending their company a bill. In practice, I know that that would be quite impossible, but one wonders whether the temporary lifting of immunities might not be a deterrent to the flagrantly unfair treatment of British citizens abroad.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I am worried about the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke. It may be that the course of action outlined by the Minister in Committee of going forward and signing a new Anglo-Soviet convention will have some practical effect on this case. It is plainly a sorry story. We have objected to this flagrant abuse of our consular rights, but our objections have been ignored. We have taken no counter-measures to back our 'protests. Everyone knows that we will take no counter-measures. As a result, not only has Gerald Brooke been devalued, but all our rights have been devalued a little.

Although the Bill is a technical one, the way in which our consuls and our citizens abroad are treated is a direct reflection on our national standard. The fact that in too many cases in recent months British consular rights have been over-ridden has something to do with the feeling of national malaise that appears to exist today.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), in his typically meticulous way, asked a number of questions. If the House did not mind being too long detained, I should be very happy to go through them in detail, but I think that at this late hour I should try to limit myself to one or two of the outstanding ones, in the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman, of all Members, will be thorough enough to ask Parliamentary Questions if he believes that some information which should have been forthcoming has not been given to the House.

Twenty-eight countries have bound themselves to the Vienna Convention, as the hon. Gentleman said. Now is not the time to list them all, but this is the type of precise information which I should be only too glad to give in a Written Answer. I do not think that it is very desirable to detail all the negotiations which are going on for bilateral conventions. As the House will appreciate, there are delicate aspects here and it would be better to leave it like that for the moment.

The hon. Gentleman asked questions about exemption from United Kingdom taxation and where to draw the line. He raised some very interesting questions about how the exemptions within the Bill might apply to budgetary changes. I do not think that I can go into this detail now, nor into the interesting question of how to define "a household". There is no definition within the Vienna Convention, but as a general rule it will be understood to cover the spouse—usually the wife—and minor children of the individual who are resident with them. There could be a dispute in this matter, but it is one which could be settled by the Foreign Office and the interested home Departments in consultation with the authorities of the country concerned.

In addition, as in other respects in the Bill, we must rely upon a certain amount of common sense and give and take and on the assumption that, by and large, with some notable exceptions mentioned tonight, countries deal with each other in a responsible way. The purpose of the exemptions from taxation is reciprocity. As I said on the last occasion, what we lose on the swings we reckon that we gain on the roundabouts. This is something which, although it is of proper concern to the House, need not worry it for too long tonight.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question, which also arose in Committee, about an affray. First, it will usually happen that the causing of an affray or any other deliberate assault would not be regarded by the courts or by any other authorities as being performed in the exercise of consular functions and, therefore, no immunity would be afforded under Article 43. However, as I said in Committee, it is possible that in certain circumstances an act of violence could be regarded as performed in the exercise of consular functions. In this case the victim could bring proceedings in the court to recover damages, and it would be for the court to decide, in the light of its findings on the facts, whether a claim to immunity was justified. I think that there is here a redress which represents the sort of safeguard which the hon. Gentleman was seeking.

The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), raised important matters concerning British subjects who are detained abroad. I appreciate the feelings of the House on this. It is something with which we should properly be concerned.

The question of Gerald Brooke was first mentioned. May I say in passing, because there is not a great deal that I can add to what I told the House in Committee, and it has been said since then, that we have been continuing to press the Soviet authorities for access to Mr. Brooke. So far this has not been given to us, but, in view of the assurances which we have received from the Soviet authorities, I believe that our best chance of securing what we want lies in pressing on and bringing the Convention into force as soon as we can complete the necessary procedures. This is still our view. Meanwhile, the information which we have received from the Soviet authorities suggests that Mr. Brooke's health is reasonably good, despite some of the troubles that he has had in the past. I think we can feel confident that he is being properly looked after in this respect, though his total treatment remains far from satisfactory.

The question has been raised of Mr. Watt who, on 15th March, was sentenced by the Chinese authorities to three years' imprisonment for espionage, and perhaps at this point I might mention Anthony Grey whose name has not been mentioned this evening, but whose case was raised at an earlier stage, and also one other British citizen whom we believe to be detained in China, Mr. Barrymaine, a freelance journalist. When we received a report on 14th March that he had failed to arrive in Hong Kong, we began inquiries, and we have discovered that he was taken into custody in Shanghai on or about 23rd February. No reason has been given for his detention.

In Mr. Barrymaine's case we have addressed a note to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and in the case of Mr. Watt we have been persistent over the whole period since his detention on 26th September, that was the date when he was placed under house arrest. We have made representations to the Chinese authorities at frequent intervals, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

It is a revelation that yet another British citizen is held in China. Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that there are others? Are there any others known to the Foreign Office? At this stage I am not asking for the names, but is it possible that once again there are people held in China whose names the Foreign Office is not willing to disclose, for one reason or another?

Mr. Rodgers

The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech, and I was hoping to come to it, because this is an important matter of principle. The only British citizens whom we believe to be detained in China are the three I have mentioned, Grey, Watt and Barrymaine. If Barrymaine's case is a revelation, I think I should say that it has been mentioned in the newspapers, and that we have not consciously withheld any information from the House about it.

Mr. McMaster

The hon. Gentleman said that representations had been made to the Chinese in the Watt case. Have these representations been made in London through the Chargé d' Affaires here, or just in Peking?

Mr. Rodgers

That question was asked in the House last Wednesday, and although this goes a little outside the terms of the Bill I should say that with regard to relations with the Chinese, as with some other countries, it is a matter of judgment to decide where we can best bring pressure to bear. It is our ex- perience that representations made in Peking are more likely to be effective. This is the channel of communication which the Chinese prefer, and representations here have not necessarily brought any great success, but as the hon. Gentleman may recall, I have on one occasion seen the Chinese Chargé d'Affairs. If we felt that it was desirable to make representations through him, we would certainly do so. It is simply a question of convenience and effectiveness, and nothing else.

The hon. Member for Bury St:Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) made an important point when he asked how the Foreign Office decided to withhold information, and he suggested that British citizens might sink without trace. There is a difficult question of judgment here, not only in respect of these three men detained in China but in repect of others who are from time to time detained in other countries.

The extreme options are, on the one hand, to say nothing—to keep quiet and work behind the scenes—and, on the other, to seek the maximum publicity. I will only say that, after the mast careful examination, in nine cases out of ten it is our judgment that a massive publicity campaign will not produce results and can sometimes harm the individual who is held. It is a question of judgment and it is not an easy one. I do not think that in any of these cases do we conceal something, either from the House or the public.

It is very rare for someone to be detained abroad—and this applies in these three cases, as in the case of Gerald Brooke—without having a relative, employer. friend or somebody here who is prepared to speak out on his behalf. It would be totally beyond the competence of the Foreign Office to say to any such friend, relative or employer, "You must not make known publicly the fact that this man is held" or, alternatively, "You must not conduct a campaign in the Press, in Parliament or elsewhere."

We seek to discuss the circumstances of the individual concerned and try to arrive at some sort of agreement on the right course to pursue. For that reason, as we are not the only channel of communication, I do not think that we could make arbitrary decisions which might result in somebody being held without publicity.

Mr. Goodhart

Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, does he recognise that there is some doubt about other British nationals who may venture into this difficult area not knowing the risks to which they are subjecting themselves?

Mr. Rodgers

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that point in his speech. That is certainly the case, although I do not believe that anybody who goes to China today is unaware of the risks involved. The House may be satisfied to know that, in so far as it is ncessary, we draw to the attention of anyone going to China, for business or other purposes, what real risks are involved and what those risks are in terms of self interest. We do not want to have an increasing number of British subjects held in intolerable circumstances.

I said at the outset that, of course, we cannot make other Governments behave in a civilised manner if they are determined not to do so and that the Bill should be seen within these limits. I regret that China is one outstanding example—not only British subjects but the subjects of virtually every other country have suffered—of a country which, for the time being, is certainly unwilling to conform to conventional standards of international behaviour.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.