§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
§ 12.3 am
§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)I wish to raise the subject of diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom. The recent violence at the Iranian embassy and the even more recent bomb outrage at the Kuwaiti office in Bond Street at the weekend show that such incidents are increasing and that London is fast becoming the battlefield of contending factions in wars, disputes and grievances which have no connection with the people of this country but which put them in great danger.
The danger that the abuse of diplomatic immunity arouses for our people is componded by the comparative liberality of our laws and the width of the immunity. Correspondingly, there is a great deal of abuse of that immunity. Diplomatic immunity has existed since ancient times. It has been recognised by civilised States as almost the first step in international comity. The benefits of international trade, traffic and communications flow from such arrangements, whereby States may seek representation in each other's territory for the mutual progress of mankind.
Thus, an outrageous breach of civilised standards occurred last year in Iran and is continuing there. It has been nine months since the taking of the hostages in the American embassy, and the position seems to be getting worse. Every rule applying to these wretched people has been broken and, apparently, nothing effective is being done.
All States have an interest in respecting diplomatic immunity. The USSR and those other nations which seem at the moment to be standing on the sidelines of this dispute have just as much to lose as the United States or any other country. They are just as vulnerable to such legal action. In other words, there should be international action against those responsible for this outrage. It should not be a matter for the West alone.
Because of the polarisation of international politics, once the West takes up an issue it becomes a part of power 1212 politics and the struggle between East and West and loses its true international aspect. The United Nations, par excellence, is the institution to resolve this problem. It is ideally cast as the forum for the expression of world anger at this breach of the principle of diplomatic immunity.
I want to raise some questions about apparent breaches of diplomatic immunity in London. How extensively is it granted in this country? There are about 125 resident and 14 non-resident missions here. When I last asked a question on the matter, I was told that more than 20,000 diplomatic agents were accorded diplomatic immunity. That is a large enough figure, but how many others are covered by the ancillary provisions of the Vienna convention? Especially, members of the families and domestic staffs of the diplomatic agents are entitled to immunities. There are varying grades of immunity, but the total number of those exempt from this country's jurisdiction must be huge—possibly as many as 100,000.
If that is an exaggerated estimate, I hope that the Minister will correct it. All those people are immune from arrest, from our taxes and from many of our laws in respect of their personal conduct and their own property. Are we satisfied that only those are here who are needed to do the diplomatic jobs in this country?
There have been outstanding examples of diplomatic immunity having been abused in respect of espionage. I think that it was the Conservative Government of 1971 who declared about 100 citizens of the Soviet Union in this country as diplomatic agents to be persona non grata. As a result, they were sent home.
It came as a surprise to many people that there were as many as 100 people who could be sent home. The total number must have been so great that 100 people could be sent home and still the diplomatic activity of the Soviet Union could go on in this country, apparently unimpaired. Secondly, it must have been surprising that there could have been grounds—as there obviously were—for supposing that those people had been acting unacceptably and had been involved in espionage.
The difficulty is that London is a key diplomatic city for these purposes. The 1213 Iranian embassy at Princes Gate was chosen, according to one of the hostage takers, to attract attention to their cause because of the publicity which it was known BBC television, the broadcasting authorities and the media generally in this country would give them. They knew that they would get the greatest possible publicity from carrying out their evil deeds in this country. They were representatives of a minority group in Iran whose grievance was against the central authorities there. Their grievance was centred there and had nothing whatever to do with this country.
It is perfectly true to say that the BBC, and the media generally, are always willing to give publicity to terrorists. Indeed, if they observed British interests in Northern Ireland more and refused to cooperate with the publicity-seeking methods of the IRA the menace of the IRA in Northern Ireland would not be nearly as great as it is.
In recent times, the most notorious case of abuse of diplomatic immunity concerns the Libyans. Colonel Gadaffi has openly thereatened violence to Libyan exiles outside his own country. In effect, he has sentenced some of them to death. It appears that the assassination squads have been about in the world and that the Libyan embassy in London has had some responsibility for their organisation and for their operations here, resulting in the killing of two of Colonel Gaddafi's political opponents.
It is good to know that the Government decided that some people in the Libyan embassy should be required to leave because of their unacceptable activities, but of course the real menance is that any diplomatic mission can be used—and perhaps more than one—to promote causes involving violence, and even murder, in this country.
The Libyans, in particular, are playing a rather curious game in designating their missions as people's bureaux. As far as I know, there is no such thing in diplomatic practice. There might be a mission, in which there is an ambassador, a high commissioner or a papal nuncio, but one has never heard of a secretary of the people's bureau. I hope that the Government will insist that by whatever name these missions are called they still observe the rules that entitle them to diplomatic immunity.
1214 What can we do about all this? There are two aspects to the problem. The first concerns control over the individuals who have been misbehaving. I hope that the Government will make greater use of the powers to declare persona non grata individuals against whom there is any evidence whatever of misbehaviour and send them back to their own homes and away from this country. I hope, too, that the Czech diplomat who was obviously the worse for drink when driving in Kilburn recently, and who alleged that he was beaten up by the police—which I am sure was a patent falsehood—will be sent home. Obviously he abused our hospitality. Where there is the slightest evidence against a diplomatic agent, I hope that there will be no hesitation in sending him home and communicating with the Government concerned for that to be done immediately the evidence is in possession of the British Government.
The suspicion is that many of the weapons and explosives used in Britain in recent violent incidents were brought here in diplomatic bags. One can wonder about that, because there must be over 100 lawful points of entry for goods. Firearms can be imported in crates of fruit and other apparently normal imports, but the diplomatic bag is inviolate. Article 27 of the Vienna convention provides that a properly authenticated diplomatic bag is not to be opened or detained. To what extent are we entitled to ensure that the duties incumbent on a mission in importing goods in a diplomatic bag are being observed? Should there be some form of electronic scan or X-ray to enable us to ascertain whether firearms are in a diplomatic bag?
It is alleged that the use of such a device could be regarded as a constructive opening of the bag. If that is so there is a strong argument for amending the Vienna convention. After centuries of diplomatic practice it is now possible, with the sophisticated devices available, for many items to be brought in through the diplomatic bag, unknown to the metropolitan authorities, which were not contemplated when the convention was agreed. If it is possible to amend the convention to give power to check on the contents of diplomatic bags, that should be done by the British Government. The Vienna convention also allows for some 1215 examination of the personal baggage of diplomatic agents. The Government are obliged to ensure that the terms of the convention are complied with. The spread of terrorism here and abroad is so great that urgent action is needed to protect the citizens of this land. I hope that my hon. Friend and the Government are taking the problem seriously.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd)My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is right to raise this matter, and I am grateful for the thoughtful manner in which he has done so. I associate myself entirely with his remarks about the American hostages in Tehran.
The whole question of diplomatic immunity, and the use made of it, has aroused considerable concern in this country in recent weeks and months. The points that my hon. Friend raised deserve careful scrutiny. The problem arises because London is one of the great diplomatic capitals of the world. There are 139 diplomatic missions in this country, employing 2,388 diplomats and 3,077 administrative and technical staff who are entitled to full immunity. There are other people, service staffs, and so on, who are entitled to partial immunity in their official acts, and there are also dependants. The total, although falling short of my hon. Friend's estimate, is substantial.
We have lived through a period of rapid rise in the number of nation States. I do not think that there is likely to be much further expansion, but the increase has meant a dramatic growth in the number of diplomatic missions here. On balance, we benefit from that fact. The Government would not like to see London dwindle away and embassies based elsewhere, simply sending someone here from time to time on particular pieces of business.
There is one other aspect that I should mention. We not only entertain diplomats here. We maintain a powerful diplomatic service—powerful perhaps in quality rather than total quantity—and the effectiveness of that service is important in the success of our undertakings.
In considering the question of diplomatic immunities we have to consider also 1216 our own diplomatic service and its needs. Our diplomats are enjoined and required strictly to observe not only the Vienna convention but the laws and regulations of the receiving State in which they happen to serve.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to certain aspects of the Vienna convention. He did not fall into the error, which one does sometimes see conveyed, that diplomats, through the convention and through their immunities, are absolved in some way from respecting the laws of the country in which they serve. That is not so. Article 41 of the Vienna convention is specific on that point. It states:
Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.It is our intention to make it clear that that article must be respected in this country. We do not intend to allow embassies in London to become a haven from which illegal acts can be worked out and devised and from which such acts can be equipped and carried out by mischievously disposed persons. I hope that we showed that clearly in the action that we took, to which my hon. Friend referred, in the case of the Libyans connected with the Libyan embassy. From this point of view, as he rightly says, it makes no difference what they call themselves at the present time.We asked that these four people should be withdrawn because we believed that they were carrying out activities that were incompatible with their functions. As my hon. Friend will know, there was no suggestion that they were connected with the murders, which are sub judice, and for which other people are in police custody.
I hope that the action that we took in respect of the Libyans will be clearly understood by all those concerned. As my hon. Friend remarked, we have power to declare diplomats persona non grata. That power exists under international law and we shall not hesitate to use it when we think the circumstances justify it. We shall not hesitate to take any action open to us under the law that we believe is needed to ram home this particular lesson.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries London suffered acutely from affrays between different ambassadors and 1217 their retinues. We have no intention of allowing such affrays to be repeated with the much more terrible weapons of today, let alone allowing embassies in some way to be used as headquarters from which foreigners peacefully living here and going about their lawful occasion can be intimidated and harassed.
My hon. Friend referred rightly to the question of firearms, which obviously exercises us a great deal. It follows from article 41 of the Vienna convention, which I have already quoted, that diplomats here, all members of embassy and consulate staffs, are subject to the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968. That is to say, they need a firearms certificate in respect of any type of firearm and ammunition, except shotguns for sporting purposes. For those they need a shotgun certificate.
Diplomatic missions here have been reminded of these facts several times, most recently last month, and they have been told again that no firearms certificate—this is an important point—will be granted by the police in respect of weapons intended for purposes of protection. That is to say, a certificate will not be granted simply on the ground that the person owning the weapon wishes to use it to protect himself. We regard it—this is sustained by international law—as the duty of our authorities in the United Kingdom—the police—to protect diplomatic missions. I think that we gave evidence of our determination of this fact in the siege at Princes Gate.
If there were to be firm evidence that firearms were found either in the possession of diplomatic missions, as such, or of their staffs, or that firearms had been passed to others through diplomatic missions, that would be a very serious matter, of which we would take a very grave view. I choose my words carefully, but I hope that they will be noted. It is the duty of anyone possessing such firm evidence to let us know, so that the necessary steps can be taken.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of the scanning of diplomatic bags in an effort to make sure that this abuse could not occur. He quoted, appositely, article 27 of the Vienna convention, which does not specifically prohibit scanning but says that diplomatic bags shall not be " opened or detained ". There is a practical 1218 point here which I have not seen mentioned in the press. I am advised that scanner would not necessarily pick up a weapon in a diplomatic bag. Weapons can be stripped down and concealed in containers which the scanner might show to contain peaceful and legitimate equipment—for example, spare parts for some piece of official equipment.
It is not clear, therefore, that the introduction of scanning would provide some total magic cure to this possible problem. Here again, I say that diplomatic bags may be used only for carrying objects or documents that are intended solely for official use by a diplomatic or consular mission. If there is hard evidence of malpractice in this respect which comes our way and satisfies our investigations, we shall not hesitate to take the necessary action.
My hon. Friend concluded by asking: why not amend the Vienna convention to tighten up these particular provisions? He will know from his professional experience that the convention cannot be amended unilaterally. One would have to reopen negotiations to secure agreement. A number of countries have proposed that the Vienna convention should be amended, but the design of those countries is that it should be amended to give more protection to the diplomatic bag and to the diplomatic courier. Those proposals are being mulled over by the International Law Commission. We have expressed the view—I think that my hon. Friend would agree—that sufficient protection is already given to the diplomatic bag and to the diplomatic courier, and that we should not seek to add to the protection. But the efforts to amend the convention are in the opposite direction to that suggested by my hon. Friend.
The Vienna convention is a relatively modern and well-thought-out international law. The fault lies not in the convention but in its imperfect observance. We are clear that with regard to this country and to our diplomatic service overseas the convention must be observed. We shall be resolute—I hope tactfully—in making sure that it is observed in regard to missions in this country. It would be unfortunate if, as a result of something that occurred, some sort of popular feeling was stirred up against diplomats or embassies in London. The vast majority behave in a way that my 1219 hon. Friend and I appreciate, and then-presence here is welcome. But where there are lapses and breaches of the convention and breaches of our laws, and where clear evidence is available of such breaches, it is part of our duty as a Government in the securing of law and order to ensure that those breaches are met by the action that is available to us under international law.
We have given evidence of our determination in this respect, both as regards the Libyans and the siege at Princes Gate and the different conversations and discussions that took place in the context 1220 of that siege. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the matter in the House. It is one that has aroused greater public interest than the number of hon. Members present in the House would indicate. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep us up to the mark. He can be assured that in the Foreign Office and in the Government this is a matter to which we are giving a good deal of thought, and on which we shall not hesitate to take action if the circumstances require it.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.