PART III. (Hansard, 14 November 1944)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have put so heavy a tax upon your attention to-day that I am glad to say that I can dispose of this matter, with your approval, in a very few sentences. This Bill, the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill had its origin in this House. I made a short explanatory speech which, for the moment, was regarded as so satisfactory that nobody else said anything at all. The Bill passed through the House of Lords in a very few minutes. In the House of Commons it was exposed to more deliberate examination. It was there felt by many critics that the Bill was drawn ranch too loosely and much too widely and contained, at any rate in theory, the possibilities of abuse. The House of Commons, therefore, made two changes, which are represented by these Amendments, and I am going to ask your Lordships to adopt the Commons Amendments en bloc.

One of the things which the House of Commons did was to limit the operation of this Bill to five years. I venture to think that that is a very prudent and right condition to impose. It will be possible to continue the Bill further if it is found to work well, but it is to a large extent experimental in its nature. The other alteration, which covers more paper but which is really a simple provision, is that whereas the Bill when introduced and approved in this House laid down some general principles as to the extent of diplomatic privileges for international organizations, and for the staffs of such organizations and for representatives of Governments on such organizations, the House of Commons has thought it better to add a Schedule which defines much more precisely what is the extent and nature of these immunities and privileges in the various classes of case. If your Lordships have looked at the actual provisions you will have seen how closely and carefully they are drawn. I very warmly 1174 commend to your Lordships these improvements in the Bill, and I beg to move.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I rise not to oppose these Amendments but merely to make a suggestion. These Amendments are evidence of the extremely stormy passage which this Bill had in another place. As the noble and learned Viscount has pointed out, it passed through your Lordships' House—thanks, I think, to the noble and learned Viscount's steersmanship—without striking any of the rocks which it met elsewhere. I believe that anyone who followed the debate in another place would have the very strong feeling that, even when amended, this Bill earned itself very few friends during its passage. I believe this to be due to the fact that there was a fundamental feeling among the members there that the Bill was in fact not really the proper way of dealing with the problem which it set out to solve. It is, I suggest, a case of putting ate new wine of twentieth century internationalism into the old bottles of national diplomatic formulae of a time gone by.

I suggest that the proper way of dealing with this problem—a problem which is already upon us, which is almost daily increasing, and which arises from the many international bodies which have already been set up and will be accentuated by other international bodies now under consideration or adumbrated—is by an International Convention. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that before this Bill has run its five years they should take the initiative and should call together a conference to hammer out an International Convention to deal with the diplomatic procedure of a new and international century.