Lords Sitting of 21 October 1954

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TRADE WITH CHINA
  3.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that in a Party political broadcast in September the Minister of Housing said that the war in Korea had ended, and that on October 8 on television the President of the United States gave a high place among the achievements of the present Congress to the ending of the war in Korea; and whether, seeing that the United Nations resolution of May, 1951, imposing an embargo on trade with China was adopted solely in relation to hostilities in Korea, they will now, in view of the foregoing statements and of the detrimental effects of the continuation of the embargo on the prosperity of Hong Kong, initiate steps in the General Assembly to bring the embargo to an end.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the noble Viscount is not quite correct in saying that the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, was adopted solely in relation to hostilities in Korea. Although the armistice has existed for some time now, it has not yet been confirmed by a final settlement. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government are giving the most careful consideration to the future of the strategic controls on trade with China which presents important problems.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his reply, and to ask him whether he is aware that the result of having different restrictions for Russia and China is to allow Western goods to be passed through Russia or Poland to China, thus making China ever more dependent on
  566
  Russia for supplies and shipping, and at the same time frustrating the United Nations controls.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the position in regard to Russia and China is, of course, quite different, because this particular resolution of the United Nations applied solely to the position in Korea. That affected China; nothing similar has affected relations with Russia. I appreciate what the noble Viscount has in mind in the other context. That is one of the difficulties.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, can the noble Marquess say what precise action on the part of the Peking Government would enable this embargo to be lifted?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, no, I cannot say, and the noble Viscount must, I think, realise that I could not say in advance what particular action would affect the situation. I have said that we are considering the problem.

MOSCOW DIPLOMATIC DINNER PARTY
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the statement in The Times that the British Ambassador (among others) walked out of a Moscow diplomatic dinner party because he was asked to occupy the same table as the Communist Chinese and East German Ambassadors.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I can confirm that Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, and his Western colleagues, left the dinner party to which they had been invited by the Burmese Ambassador on October 19 before dinner was served. This was because Sir William Hayter found on arrival that representatives of States which Her Majesty's Government do not recognise, including the Ambassadors of the so-called German Democratic and Korean People's Republics had, unbeknown to him, also been invited.
The Ambassador was given no warning that the party was to be other than a

567
small, informal gathering and, in particular, he was not informed that the Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs would be present. As the noble Viscount will know, Moscow has its own traditions and ways of life. There are complicated relationships between the various Embassies and Ambassadors have to use their discretion in the peculiar local circumstances about their attendance at diplomatic functions. On this occasion the Western Ambassadors had to take a decision on the spur of the moment and they decided to extricate themselves from the embarrassing position in which they had been placed.
In the circumstances in which they found themselves, I consider that the decision which Her Majesty's Ambassador and his Western colleagues took to leave this party was a correct one. Sir William Hayter's decision was not, of course, connected with the presence of the Chinese Ambassador at this dinner party since, as the noble Viscount well knows, Her Majesty's Government recognise the Chinese Government. Nor, needless to say, was there any question of discourtesy towards the Soviet Foreign Minister who, unknown in advance to the Western Ambassadors, was also a guest at this function. Her Majesty's Ambassador and his Western colleagues have in fact informed Mr. Molotov that they regretted the embarrassment which had been caused, explaining that the Burmese Ambassador had not told them whom he intended to invite.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess one or two questions. The first is this. This happening amounted to an affront to the Burmese Ambassador. Has any expression of regret been made to him? Mr. Maung Onh, who is well known in this country, is a warm friend of our country. I am told that the meeting, in fact, covered all the diplomatic corps in Moscow. That being so, is the complaint suggested in the noble Marquess's answer justified; and if not, would it not be well to express to the Burmese Ambassador some regret for this unfortunate occurrence? Secondly, inasmuch as The Times said that our Ambassador left because of the presence of the Chinese Communist Ambassador, as he was called, and the East German Ambassador, would it not be well for it to
568
be made clear that the presence of the Chinese Ambassador had nothing whatever to do with the withdrawal or boycott by the seven Western members?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as regards the position of the Burmese Ambassador, it may be that the invitation that he extended, in those circumstances, was done in all good faith; but he did put Her Majesty's Ambassador and the other Ambassadors in an extremely difficult situation from which, as I have explained, they felt obliged to extricate themselves in the way that they did. No expression of regret to the Burmese Ambassador has been presented, nor, so far as I know, has any expression of regret been received from him for the difficult position in which he placed the Western members. As regards the second part, I cannot be responsible for what The Times newspaper may have stated in this context. I have given the noble Viscount so far as I know them the facts, and I hope that they will obtain the necessary publicity.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Marquess say that the invitation may have been extended in all good faith. I met the Burmese Ambassador in Moscow about a fortnight ago, in the British Embassy there, and I knew him for several years when he was in London. Would the noble Marquess be willing to accept my assurance that this invitation was not deliberately intended as an act of discourtesy towards the British Ambassador or any of the Western Ambassadors?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I also have known the particular Ambassador in question for some years from the time when he was here. I did not suggest that it was an act of deliberate discourtesy. It might have been an unwise step. But really I think we should do very much better in the interests of all concerned if we left it at that point.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is obvious from what the noble Marquess has said that some difficulty will arise. On Saturday we are to sign a Convention excluding all association with the representatives of the Eastern German State. Will the noble Marquess in due course be willing to give some public explanation of what parties may or may not be attended by our representatives and by representatives

569
of the Houses of Parliament? Because he will see that, especially in Asia, if the presence of the East Germans or certain others is a reason for boycotting or withdrawing from a party, it will make any progress with the possibility of friendship and co-existence impossible.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think the noble Viscount has stated his case in wide terms. I should not be prepared to take the responsibility of laying down any sort of hard and fast code, because I think circumstances vary in different cases and in different places. It must be left to the good sense of the persons on the spot to decide what is the correct procedure to take.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Are we to understand, therefore, that the protocol is at variance with the policy of the country—namely, that we should try and act in a friendly manner towards these countries?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: We are prepared to try to act in a friendly manner towards countries, but what we cannot do is to put ourselves in the position of seeming to recognise representatives of countries which we in fact do not recognise from the official angle.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Is my noble friend aware that Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow at any rate commands the respect and support of a great number of people in this country?

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
3.16 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the European Payments Union) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, it is not, I hope I may claim, my habit to usurp as much of your Lordships' Order Paper in normal conditions as, partly through no fault of mine, I have to-day. There are upon the Order Paper to-day eight of these Orders for consideration by your Lordships, and I am anxious to deal with them in what may be the way most convenient to the House, and without detaining the House at undue length. What I propose to do is, I hope, for the convenience of the House—and I may do it only with the permission of the House—and that is to deal with these eight Orders simultaneously in a series of, I hope, not very prolonged introductory remarks, and then to make some specific reference to certain details which distinguish one from the other but not, unless the House particularly desires it, to go into the precise details of the privileges, the organisation concerned and so forth, in connection with each separate Order, because it is the principle which matters.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I think that is a convenient course. We certainly do not want this argument to take place eight times, and if the noble Marquess adopts the course he suggests I venture to think that will be for the convenience of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl, and if I may I will follow the line which I have suggested. If at the end there are any points which noble Lords feel I have not dealt with adequately in the course of the opening remarks then, with the leave of the House, I will try to deal with them before the actual Orders are put individually, as they must be, to the House at the final stage.
There are on the Order Paper, as your Lordships see, eight of these Orders, and

571
they differ somewhat in character. As regards three of them, the European Payments Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Customs Co-operation Council—that is the first and the last two on the list—the position, as I shall submit to your Lordships, is that we are already under an obligation to approve an Order giving the privileges and immunities which the particular Draft Order in each of these cases prescribes. The second, third and fourth Orders—those dealing with the World Meteorological Organisation, the Universal Postal Union (an old friend of some of your Lordships) and the International Telecommunication Union—are in a slightly different position, because each of those is one of what we call the Specialised Agencies established under the United Nations Charter. They fall to be dealt with in a slightly different way from the others—at least our position in regard to them differs somewhat. The Council of Europe and the International Civil Aviation Organisation are again in a somewhat different category, because all those are concerned merely with really minor amendments to already existing Orders which your Lordships' House, together with another place, have, according to the requirements of the relevant Statutes, approved in the past. It would perhaps be convenient and relevant, and I think helpful, if for a brief time I went into the background position so as to show your Lordships what the principle is with which we are really concerned here.
Diplomatic immunities and privileges are, of course, no new thing. They have, by now, a long history. It is quite true, as Sir Harold Nicolson has pointed out in a recent extremely entertaining and informative publication on the evolution of diplomatic procedure, that in earlier years envoys were apt to be somewhat roughly treated, if not indeed on occasions put to death. Those days have, happily, passed, except for occasional unfortunate recurrences, and, on the whole, the position now is that for many years the peculiar status of envoys (using the term in a general sense) has been recognised between civilised States. Certainly that has been the case in this country for many years but certainly, also, in the years since the Second World War the number of persons included under the heading of those receiving diplomatic privilege and immunity in varying degrees
572
has greatly increased. I think it was a figure of something just over 1,000 in the years before 1939, and the figure, taking in not only the Ambassador but the High Commissioners as well, is now something nearer the 3,000 mark. One has to remember, however, that the work of diplomatic missions has substantially increased in recent years. Formerly, there were, perhaps, only the Ambassador, or, even more probably, the Minister, and a Counsellor and a few Secretaries. But now, in many embassies, indeed in most of the embassies of the larger countries, one finds commercial counsellors or commercial attachés—Press, labour and others—all performing in their various spheres very useful work for the country on whose behalf they are serving there.
It is not only that the actual numerical strength of missions has greatly increased in these recent years; what one must not forget is that the number of countries has also very considerably increased in the years since the war. It so happens that during the period of the Recess my attention has been rather riveted on South-East Asia. When I look at that part of the world alone I am reminded that, of the countries there, looking at them from West to East, the only two countries which existed before the war in their present form, apart from the British possessions themselves in the area, are Siam and Nepal. Pakistan, India, Burma, Ceylon, Laos, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Philippines—all those countries have since the war taken on a new status and are now represented in this country by an Ambassador or a Minister or a High Commissioner, as it may be, with the appropriate staff. It is therefore not to be wondered at, from both those points of view, I think, that the field covered by diplomatic immunity has inevitably, for those two reasons, greatly increased. It is not, however, only a question—and here, indeed, not a question—of diplomatic immunity. I only open with that reference in order to show your Lordships that, whether some of your Lordships like it or not, the field of diplomatic immunity has increased, and inevitably greatly increased.
But now, since the war, there have also come into being a large number of international organisations enjoying what may be called an official status. Before 1939 there were relatively few of these.

573
There was the League of Nations itself; there was the International Labour Office; there was the Universal Postal Union, and there was the International Telecommunication Union, and there may have been a few others. But since the war a substantial number of new organisations of this kind have come into being, some directly under the auspices of the United Nations itself, like the Specialised Agencies; others as the result of agreements between groups of countries concerned, like the Customs Co-operation Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Council of Europe. Those bodies having come into existence, the problem confronted all the countries concerned as to how they were to be dealt with from the aspect of status. A number of questions necessarily arose which were discussed, at greater or lesser length, at the conferences at which these various bodies were originally established; and the United Kingdom Government of the post-war day decided, as did most of the other Governments concerned, that the only way in which to deal with these various bodies was to try to get some prevailing principle which regulated, in the case of all of them, the kind of privileges and immunities which they ought to receive.
The United Kingdom Government took, I think, in many cases, a lead in bringing that state of affairs to pass, accepting that the adoption of that method of dealing with the situation, the extension of immunity and privileges to these international bodies, would involve the necessary legislation in Parliament here, in order to give effect to the decisions which were taken in respect of these various bodies. An Act of Parliament was passed in 1944, and between 1944 and 1946 a number of Orders in Council were made under the Act which then regulated the situation—Orders in respect of the International Labour Office, the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and other bodies—and those are still in force. The privileges and immunities which were extended to to those bodies, so far as the Government of this country were concerned, still prevail.
In 1945 and 1946, when the previous Government in this country were in
574
office, the General Assembly of the United Nations took up this subject and dealt with the question of privileges and immunities. As a result, there was drawn up a General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. In addition, the General Assembly, acting largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom representative, passed a resolution which provided for the unification of the privileges and immunities of all the organisations concerned which were at the time, or which were to become, what are called "Specialised Agencies" of the United Nations. The purpose, of course, was to obtain uniformity and, at the same time, to make sure that the privileges and immunities given were reasonable in the particular cases and were not in any case excessive. As a result, the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations was drawn up. It was then found that a new Act of Parliament was required, and a few Act was duly passed.
Parliament approved the basic idea of the uniformity of privileges and immunities to be extended, and the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1947 adopted a Convention for privileges and immunities of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations. The purpose of this Convention was to provide a series of what may be called specimen clauses in regard to the privileges and immunities to be afforded to the various Specialised Agencies, and the Governments which accede to that Convention bind themselves to give the specified privileges and immunities to a Specialised Agency on their accession to the Convention in respect of that Agency—that is to say, there is provided in the Convention (I will refer to the exact terms in a moment) a mechanism whereby a Government can give notice that it is passing the necessary Order in Council, in the case of the United Kingdom, which will have the effect of extending certain privileges to a specified Specialised Agency, and thereby is acceding in respect of that Agency to the Convention.
My Lords, between 1946 and 1950 the then Government of this country acceded to the Convention in respect of a number of Specialised Agencies, each accession requiring an Order in Council to implement it. Then, in 1950, your Lordships will remember, there came the Act

575
of Parliament which was in fact a consolidating Act and which conveniently brought into one Statute the provisions in regard to immunities and privileges which had been previously distributed in various Acts passed between 1944 and 1950. I think the provisions of that Act will still be familiar to those of your Lordships who are interested in this particular problem. They will remember that the first section was to apply to any
"organisation declared by an Order in Council to be an organisation of which … the United Kingdom or His Majesty's Government therein"
and one or more foreign countries or Governments are members. Then it went on to provide that by Order in Council
"any organisation … shall to such extent as may be specified in the Order, have the immunities and privileges which are set out in Part I of this Schedule to the Act, and shall also have legal capacity as a body corporate."
It went on to specify other privileges and immunities. Section 6 of that Act laid down that these Orders in Council shall be the subject of Affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. So far as I remember, that was a provision which was put in at the instigation of this House when the Bill was under consideration, and it is those Affirmative Resolutions which your Lordships are now being asked to consider in regard to these various international bodies, the names of which figure in the list.
It may be that there are some amongst your Lordships who think that the whole principle of this extension of diplomatic immunity and privilege to international organisations is wrong. All I would say in regard to that is that it is rather late to take that point of view because, since the year 1944—a period of ten years—we have been passing various Acts of Parliament to enable us to extend these privileges and immunities; and under these various Acts of Parliament we have, in fact, extended privileges and immunities to a number of international organisations. It would be a very difficult thing—and, I would submit, a very wrong thing at this point of advance—suddenly to go into reverse and say "No, we are going to change our whole policy; we are going back. We are going to obliterate all these Orders which have already been made and start upon an entirely new basis."
576
Moreover, there is this consideration: that the Government of the United Kingdom have, in many of these discussions, if not in most of them, taken a very active part in promoting not only the organisation but the steps which were necessary to provide it with the necessary privileges and immunities when it came into being. And as the result of the discussions in which the United Kingdom took part on all these matters, a number of countries have already taken the same course that we have taken, and have extended these appropriate privileges and immunities to various organisations—indeed, to all those organisations to which reference is made on the Order Paper this afternoon: all of them are already the subject of the receipt of privileges and immunities on these lines from a number of other countries. We are not taking a unique line of our own in now coming and asking Parliament to enable us to follow suit in the train of a number of other countries in extending the appropriate privileges and immunities to these various organisations.
My Lords, if there be criticism of them, it will, I suppose, be directed chiefly towards two of them, the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunication Union—not on the ground of any personal hostility towards these bodies which noble Lords opposite—or, indeed, on this side of the House, for all I know—may have towards them, but for the reason that they are old-established bodies, whereas I think it is true to say that all the other six are bodies which have come into existence in the years since the war. We had a little foretaste, perhaps, of the lines on which criticism would proceed when an Order in respect of the Universal Postal Union was rather briefly paraded before the House in 1950 by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It was then subjected to some criticism by the late noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—
EARL JOWITT: And by Lord Swinton.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: And by Lord Swinton—and I think, by the noble and learned Earl himself.
EARL JOWITT: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: And it was then withdrawn. I make no apology for again bringing this Order

577
forward. If I may, I would submit to the House that the argument in favour of approving it is overwhelming.
What is the criticism? The criticism is that these two bodies have gone on very nicely for a number of years. We agree that the International Telecommunication Union was founded some time in 1860 and the Universal Postal Union about 1874. They have gone on, in the interval, during a period when the extension of privilege and immunity to bodies of this kind was quite unknown in international usage. The whole principle of the application of diplomatic immunity and privilege to international bodies, as distinct from diplomatic missions, is a creation of the post-war years. It is a new invention in international procedure. It is a development which we have now approved in a number of Statutes and upon which we have acted in regard to a number of different organisations. Now it is to be said that, because these bodies have functioned perfectly well in the past, they are not to have the advantage of coming in under the new order which has been established because they existed and functioned adequately before.
This matter of diplomatic privilege and immunity goes to the status of an organisation. There are certain organisations, the Specialised Agencies and so forth, which are given a status under the United Nations and which, as such, receive treatment in regard to diplomatic privilege and immunity. Why should that status be denied to these older bodies merely because they have carried on adequately in the years before any status of that kind was ever contemplated in international usage? If the creation of those privileges and immunities has any virtue (and we have shown by the course of action we have taken in the past that we believe it to have), then surely the first thing we ought to do is to bring in those bodies which in the past have served international concord well by fulfilling the functions for which they were created. Surely, when the time comes we ought to give them reward, not rebuff. If we are merely going to leave them out from everything of the kind we are saying, "You are not the sort of body that we can introduce into the select company which is entitled to receive privileges and immunities."
The late noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, made an attack particularly
578
upon the Universal Postal Union Order on these lines. He asked us to take the case of a man coming to attend a meeting of the U.P.U. at its headquarters in Berne. The man comes perhaps from America; he brings his car; disembarks at Liverpool, and drives himself across England on his way to Dover to embark for Berne to attend the meeting. Perhaps in the course of his drive he runs over and, it may be, kills or seriously injures one of Her Majesty's lieges. Because he has been accorded diplomatic immunity the unfortunate person killed or injured has no claim, or at least has no means of enforcing a claim. The noble and learned Viscount also said—and it is quite true—that by the mere fact of our giving certain privileges we automatically restrict the rights of other people.
But this picture of the reckless or unlucky foreigner, travelling across England in a motor car and causing death or injury to some other person, is not applicable only to the Universal Postal Union: it is equally applicable to every one of these Orders. It is just as applicable to the man from Canada, on his way to a meeting of N.A.T.O. in Paris, who happens to be driving through England on his way to that assignment. It is not peculiar to the Universal Postal Union. It is one of the consequences—it is a possible risk of course—of giving immunity or privilege at all. But if we are to give it at all (and this country committed itself over and over again to the principle and the doctrine incorporated in these Statutes and the Orders that have been made) what we are doing by extending it to the U.P.U. is perhaps very slightly to increase the number of persons who may cause damage or death to one or more of Her Majesty's subjects. I submit that that is a consequence which has to be accepted as an inevitable result of the acceptance of the principle, and that it is impossible to discriminate between these various organisations by saying that one was brought into being before the other and that therefore we will exclude one and include the other. The only case where one might be entitled to discriminate would be if it were sought to apply a particular Order to an organisation so different in nature or in scale from the rest of the Specialised Agencies as to make it perfectly fair to differentiate in the treatment of it and to treat it on a

579
different basis. When the comparison is between the U.P.U. and the International Telecommunication Union, on the one hand, and the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation and others, on the other, they are, in fact, exactly the same sort of organisation, and any form of discrimination because they existed before would be quite unfair and a flagrant violation of the principle.
Would it have been so very different, when payment to Members of another place was introduced, to have said: "We shall make payment to Members applicable only to those who are Members of this particular Parliament and have not been Members of previous Parliaments, because those who have been Members of previous Parliaments have got on quite happily without any salary and therefore can continue without salary. True, they have done very good work, but they have got on without salary in the past, so let them continue"? It would be an absolutely invidious distinction now to try to exclude these two organisations simply for the reason that they have done their work well in the past. It would be not only an invidious distinction but a quite unjustifiable and untenable discrimination.
That does not entirely finish the matter, because noble Lords will remember that there is this International Convention to which I have already referred, the International Convention on Privileges and Immunities, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in November, 1947. This Convention begins by defining, amongst other things, the words "Specialised Agencies." Section 1 (ii) of Article I, which deals with" Definitions and Scope," says:
"The words 'specialised agencies' mean …
(h) The Universal Postal Union" and
"(i) The International Telecommunication Union."
Both are specifically included in this Convention as Specialised Agencies of the United Nations, although they existed for many years before the United Nations ever came into being. If I may pick up the World Meteorological Organisation, that also comes in under paragraph (j) as being
"Any other agency in relationship with the United Nations."
580
Then under a later article, Article XI, of this Convention, the question of what is the machinery under this Convention for the granting of privileges and immunities is treated. Section 41 says:
"Accession to this Convention by a Member of the United Nations"—
which of course this country is—
"and (subject to section 42) by any State member of a Specialised Agency shall be effected by deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of an instrument of accession which shall take effect on the date of its deposit."
This country has so acceded to the Convention of the United Nations. Section 42 runs:
"Each Specialised Agency concerned shall communicate the text of this Convention together with the relevant annexes to those of its members which are not Members of the United Nations …"
I do not know that that is very relevant, but Section 43 is very relevant. It says that:
"Each State party to this Convention—"
which includes the United Kingdom—
"shall indicate in its instrument of accession the Specialised Agency or Agencies in respect of which it undertakes to apply the provisions of this Convention. Each State party to this Convention may by a subsequent written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations undertake to apply the provisions of this Convention to one or more further Specialised Agencies. This notification shall take effect on the date of its receipt by the Secretary-General."
That is what we are seeking to do—to apply the provisions of the Convention to Specialised Agencies, and what I submit is that, having acceded to this Convention, and having given our blessing and taken the necessary steps to bring other Specialised Agencies within the scope of the appropriate privileges and immunities, there is no caes of any kind for excluding the three Specialised Agencies which are numbered amongst those set out on the Order Paper amongst those particular Orders which we are dealing with to-day.
May I now, very briefly—I am sorry to be rather long but it takes a little time to expound the position—deal with the various individual Orders? The first one is the one relating to the European Payments Union. The position in regard to that is that an agreement for the establishment of a European Payments Union was concluded in Paris in September, 1950, and that agreement contained an

581
article which made provision for the grant of certain privileges and immunities such as are included in the draft Order. That agreement can come into force only by ratification by all the signatories. It has not yet been ratified by all the signatories, and is therefore not in force; but we desire to ratify it. At the same time, because of the inevitable delay that would occur after the signing of the agreement before it came into force, a protocol of provisional application was signed by all those signing the actual agreement. By the protocol those signing the actual agreement undertook to apply its provisions in their respective countries in advance of ratification. That is what we desire to do—to proceed to ratification and to apply the provisions under the intermediate protocol of provisional application until the document comes into force. Actually, the privileges and immunities in this case are very limited, because most of the work is done, in fact, by the staff of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, of which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is at present Chairman. The staff actually attributable to the European Payments Union is very small. I submit that that is a proper case.
I have, I think, dealt with the question of the World Meteorological Organisation, as a Specialised Agency. I have dealt with the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunication Union. Then come the Order relating to the Council of Europe and the Order concerning the International Civil Aviation Organisation, both of which are in a little different position as being Amendments to existing orders.
EARL JOWITT: If it will save the noble Marquess any trouble I may tell him that, so far as I am concerned, I am not going to raise any question about these other Orders.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. Does the same apply to the N.A.T.O. Order and also to the last two?
EARL JOWITT: The only ones I am going to raise anything upon are Numbers 2, 3 and 4.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. What he has said should enable me to
582
satisfy the House in a shorter time than if I had to deal with all the Orders at great length. The Council of Europe Order is merely an Amendment because the original Order extended the privileges only to meetings of the Council, and it has now been discovered that there is an Assembly and that there are other meetings for which privileges may be required. As regards the Council, it is a question of the permanent representatives who had not been appointed when the original Order was drafted. As regards the N.A.T.O. Order, there again, when the original N.A.T.O. Agreement was signed the North Atlantic Council Deputies adopted a resolution recommending that effect should be given to the agreement provisionally to the greatest possible extent. Salaries were fixed—and Her Majesty's Government concurred in fixing them—on a scale which assumed that they would not be liable to income tax in the United Kingdom. That Order does make exemption from Income Tax retrospective to September 20, 1951, the date on which the actual Agreement on the status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was signed. The same process was followed when, last year, your Lordships approved the International Wheat Council Order, which also, in its turn, made exemption retrospective for equivalent reasons.
As regards the Customs Co-operation Council Order, the purpose of that is merely to grant immunities and privileges which are required to be given by an annex to the Convention which established this Customs Co-operation Council. The Convention itself was signed in 1950 and ratified by Her Majesty's Government in September, 1952. It came into force in November, 1952. Since then, we have been in breach of our obligations, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships' House will now agree to enable Her Majesty's Government to discharge the very proper obligations which they have undertaken in regard to this Council.
I think that that is all I need say at the moment, but I will hear what criticisms your Lordships may desire to address to these various Orders and to the principles which I have endeavoured to outline and underline. I can only repeat that I can see no justification for endeavouring to exclude from the purview of these Orders organisations

583
which were in existence before the last war. I hope very much that your Lordships will not unduly press your views on that subject. I repeat that this policy of extending privileges and immunities to proper international organisations has been recognised by successive Governments for the ten years since the war, and it would be extremely wrong now, in view of the obligations that we have already undertaken and the action which has been taken by other countries associated with us in membership of these organisations, for us to attempt to go back on the policy which up to now has proved perfectly successful in all these cases. I think it would be convenient if I were to move in formal terms the first Order relating to the European Payments Union and, having moved that, I imagine that it will be convenient to your Lordships, just as I have dealt with them all, to deal with any points that you may have on general principles. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the European Payments Union) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, there is no controversy about this Order, but there is about the second Order. Might it not be convenient to pass this Order and get it out of the way, then formally to put the second Order and have a discussion on that? Would that be convenient?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, that would be admirably convenient and I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl for his suggestion.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE WORLD METEORO LOGICAL ORGANISATION) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty,
584
praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the World Meteorological Organisation) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the World Meteorological Organisation) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(The Marquess of Reading.)

DATE OF PROROGATION
4.4 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I interrupt the debate for a few moments, but I feel that the House will wish to hear as soon as possible an announcement with regard to the Business of Parliament which is also being made in another place. It seems likely that the consideration of outstanding Government Business before both Houses and debates on foreign affairs and other subjects will occupy our attention for five weeks or so. It is expected that Prorogation will take place during the week beginning Monday, November 22, and that the New Session will be opened by Her Majesty The Queen on Tuesday, November 30.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE WORLD METEORO LOGICAL ORGANISATION) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
4.5 p.m.
Debate resumed.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to make some observations upon this Motion and, following the very convenient way in which the noble Marquess has dealt with these matters, I will make at the same time some observations about the following two Motions, to which I also object. I could wish very much that when this matter was debated in 1950 I had had the assistance of the noble Marquess who has spoken to-day. I was then Lord Chancellor and I was greatly disturbed to find what a strength of feeling there was about this matter on

585
the other side of the House. I think I can understand it. I dissent entirely from the proposition of the noble Marquess that, because we give immunity to one organisation, therefore it follows that we must give immunity to all organisations. Indeed, it was because of that very objection that, when I introduced in 1950 the Act which was consolidated, I assented to the proposition which was made by the late Lord Simon that in every case we should have an Affirmative Resolution. I said that I thought that was right because Parliament ought to look at every case on its merits, and look at it carefully in order to see whether or not this privilege should be granted. I said that Parliament should watch with careful eyes so that this privilege should be given only where it was really necessary for the efficient functioning of an organisation.
May I take an illustration? In Parliament we have complete protection in regard to our speeches. We can make libellous statements about persons and they have no right of redress at all. Incidentally, and corollarily, there is an obligation upon every one of us to use that privilege carefully and not abuse it; but that is merely a moral obligation. Why do we do that? Because we are satisfied that it is essential for the proper functioning of Parliament that Members should be able to speak their minds without fear of the consequences. We give a similar privilege to our judges in the courts of law. But we do not extend that privilege to all and sundry—indeed, it would be a very serious thing if we did. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, is not here to-day, but I remember that when I was Lord Chancellor he dealt with the case of the Soviet News Agency Tass which published over here a most shocking libel about a Dr. Krajina, which, on the face of it, seemed to be completely untrue, and our courts held that Dr. Krajina had no right of redress because Tass, as an organ of the Soviet State, had privilege. The result was that this unfortunate person had to sit down under it and do nothing at all.
I mention that merely to show your Lordships that it is all very well to talk about these things as privileges and immunities. If we look at them from the other side, they are deprivation of rights.
586
We are taking away from the lieges rights which they otherwise would have, and it would be much better to talk about deprivation of rights instead of talking about privileges and immunities. I maintain this proposition, which was advanced by the late Lord Simon and about which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was very keen—and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, too: that before we deprive the people of their rights in any particular case we ought to see whether that deprivation is really necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the organisation in question. I look at this matter, therefore, from a point of view which is exactly the reverse of that taken by the noble Marquess. He talks about it as a reward to these organisations. I do not regard it as a reward at all. From my point of view, if we are going to take away the rights of the citizens, we ought to see that it is necessary for the proper functioning of the organisation that those rights should be taken away; and the answer would be sometimes, "Yes", and sometimes, "No".
It is the fact, as the noble Marquess said, that diplomatic immunity has greatly increased since the war. The actual figures (and I am indebted to the Foreign Office for giving me them) are as follows. Before the war there were 1,082 persons attached to the foreign diplomatic missions included in the list of persons entitled to diplomatic immunity. At the present time the figure is 3,945; that is to say, it has multiplied almost by four. That is a formidable figure. That some increase was inevitable was obvious. First of all, High Commissioners were added, and quite rightly so; and there are many more countries now than there were then. I do not complain about it, but I think it is something that we ought to watch, and we ought always to remember that this so-called privilege conferred upon some people means a deprivation of rights in regard to others. It has not mattered in the past, because the standard of tradition and conduct of the foreign envoys over here has been so exceedingly high that it has not, save in exceptional circumstances, been a matter of serious moment. But there are recorded cases where things have happened. I have heard of a case where a serious assault took place on some domestic employed in

587
a house by some person entitled to diplomatic immunity. That girl was deprived of any sort of redress, and inevitably so. Let us remember, therefore, that the giving of so-called immunity is a serious matter, because, looking at it from the other side, you are taking away from somebody a right which he has.
I take the view that each case must be looked at on its own merits. We have already passed the first Order on the Paper, and I have no objection to that. We now come to the second, which is concerned with the Meteorological Organisation. I believe the noble Marquess told us—I have not checked it, I am afraid—that this is a new organisation.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It is post-war.
EARL JOWITT: I thought so. But the next one, the Postal Union, dates back to 1874, and the Tele-communication Union dates back to the 1860's. The fact that these organisations have got on perfectly well and happily from the 1870's and the 1860's respectively in my view is important, because if I am asking myself whether it is necessary to deprive people of rights in order that these organisations may function properly, and I find that they have functioned perfectly well for 70 or 80 years, then I am inclined to think that it is not necessary and a case is not made out. I think that the principle is the same in each instance, but I take as an illustration the Postal Union. I would remind your Lordships of a debate which took place in this House on July 24, 1950. We then introduced two Motions. The first dealt with the Council of Europe, and the House, without question, gave us the Order relating to the Council of Europe. That, obviously, was a most important matter, and it was necessary that it should be given.
Having done that, my noble friend Lord Henderson moved his Motion dealing with the Post Office, and the late Lord Simon, whom we miss so greatly in this House, particularly on matters of this sort, then proceeded to point out what was involved. The noble Marquess in his speech obviously borrowed from what Lord Simon said, as I am going to do. He gave this illustration. Suppose somebody going to attend a con
588
ference at Berne (and there may be conferences in this country) decides to motor through this country; and suppose he gets hopelessly drunk and while driving his car kills somebody. What can the police do? The fact that he is going to Berne gives him complete immunity. They cannot arrest him; they cannot detain him; they have to let him go on. What about the people whom he slaughters on the road? Well, it is just too bad; and that is all there is to it. They have no rights, and their relatives have no rights.
Why do that? Here is something which has been going on since 1874 perfectly well and happily, without any of these privileges being given. Why deprive the lieges of the rights that would otherwise come to them, just because somebody can say, "Well, I am on my way to Berne."? Why should they have these privileges—people other than British subjects, I should like to point out—while exercising their functions as representatives at a congress, and during their journeys to and from the place of meeting? Complete immunity is given to these people during a journey to and from the place of meeting. I ask why. Have they asked for it? The Postmaster General on the last occasion said nothing about it. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, pointed out that he had been engaged in foreign missions in America during the war, and he never had any diplomatic immunity; and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that he had been a Minister off and on for the last thirty years and had attended all sorts of places in official capacities, but he had never had any diplomatic immunity. In my time as Lord Chancellor, I was sent by the late Mr. Bevin officially to various places, and I had no diplomatic immunity. I got on perfectly well without it. I cannot see why it is necessary.
If people are attending, a meteorological conference over here, or a Postal Union, why on earth should they be given diplomatic immunity? Is it a reward to them? Of course it is; but it is a deprivation of others' rights. I go further and say that I am even doubtful whether it is wise to give them absolute privilege in regard to any statement they put out, because the situation about which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, was so rightly indignant in regard to Tass might well arise here. You may get some shocking libel of somebody who can prove beyond any argument

589
that the libel springs from and is steeped in malice, and that there is not a shadow of justification or truth for it. But he has to sit down under it, and can do absolutely nothing. I suggest that this is wrong.
I wanted to see to what extent this may be serious, and whether there may be many people who will be getting this privilege, so I asked the Foreign Office to tell me how many people would come under this privilege. This is what they say in the letter they were kind enough to write to me:
"It is not possible to estimate the number of people who may enjoy the immunities and privileges set out in the other draft Orders"—
other than the one relating to sugar, that is; we are to have an Order relating to sugar shortly—
"since this would largely depend on the number and size of meetings held by the organisations concerned in this country. Where such meetings are held outside the United Kingdom foreign national representatives would get immunities and privileges only while passing through this country on their way to or from the place of meeting."
So that we have not the least idea how many people who may attend congresses in this country will be enjoying these privileges, and on their way through this country all these foreign representatives will enjoy them. Why? If you are going to take away from the lieges some right of redress which the law gives them—we live under the law—you must show some good cause for doing so. I maintain that you can show no good cause at all unless you adopt this theory of giving an immunity to some body which has done good work—as in the case of the Postal Union or Telecommunication Union, both of which have worked for a long time without any privilege of the sort.
I ask your Lordships to look at this point. Suppose some admirable people like the meteorological people—I wish their forecasts were a little more accurate, but we will let that pass—hold a congress in this country. You proceed to give every one of them this privilege, and any crimes they commit—because I suppose even meteorologists may commit crimes—from murder downwards, you can do absolutely nothing about. Is there really any sense at all in this? If I had pressed the Postal Union case when I sat on the Woolsack as Lord Chancellor, I am perfectly certain that every one of your Lordships, including the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, would have voted against
590
me. The step I took, therefore, was to withdraw it. I confess that I withdrew it after the late Lord Simon had made strong observations about it, and after the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, had said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 168, col. 563):
"Having listened to this debate, and having read this Order"—
it is the very Order we have to-day—
"I am bound to say that I echo what my noble and learned friend"—
that is the late Lord Simon—
"has said … it never occurred to me, when going all over the world to attend diplomatic conferences … that I ought to have diplomatic privilege."
He went on:
"Is this not a time at which we do not want to be extending these immunities?"
The noble Viscount said he could not possibly support the Order at that time. I then said (col. 564):
"Frankly I feel that in the past we have handed out this immunity too readily—and I did not get into any trouble for saying so in your Lordships' House the other day."
That is what I feel to-day. We have handed out these immunities too readily, and I think it is the height of what I venture to call ridiculous that we should extend to people who are attending a congress here, dealing with the science of meteorology—if that is the right phrase—an immunity for which, so far as I know, they have never asked, and which they get on perfectly well without. I cannot see any reason why these people should be put in this position, so that during their journey to and from the place of meeting they have complete immunity from personal arrest and detention, and so on. That extends to their alternative representatives, their advisers and technical experts, and secretaries of delegations. They have all got it. As for the high official of the Union, if he comes here he gets complete protection from any sort of legal procedings at all. Like the famous Sultan in the legal case, he is entitled to go and promise marriage and breach his promise and nothing can touch him at all. If he is a married man, then the immunity extends to his wife and children. Why on earth should it? For some people I can understand it. But when you get a high official coming over here for a short time to attend a congress, bringing with him his wife and

591
children—and his children may be young people who can drive motor cars—why should they all have diplomatic immunity? Does the noble Marquess think that is necessary for the proper functioning of a meteorological congress? If it is not necessary for the proper functioning of that congress, why should all Her Majesty's lieges be deprived of rights which they would otherwise have? That is the way I look at it.
Just as your Lordships pressed me in my days to have an Affirmative Resolution so that Parliament might look at each case on its own merits, so I suggest to your Lordships that we ought to look at these cases on their merits. I suggest that we ought to decline this Order in the case of the Postal Union, to decline it in the case of Telecommunication Union and decline it in the case of the meteorological people. As to the other bodies, I quite agree we are dealing with important organisations and to some extent immunity will be required there. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I should pass them. It is not a matter upon which I intend to divide the House unless I get some support from the other side. This is not really a Party matter at all. As I say, when I was Lord Chancellor the feeling was very strong. It may be it is so still. But I do not want to make this a mere Party matter. My own view is that the principle should be this: we should examine each case on its merits. I was careful to put that into the Act in order that we might do so, and in order that we should not deprive the lieges of their rights—that is the way I prefer to put it—unless we are satisfied that it is really necessary to do so in order to secure the proper functioning of the organisation. As I do not think it is necessary to secure the proper functioning of the organisation in these three cases, I suggest that the House gives the noble Marquess all the Orders he wants with the exception of these three.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I speak under the great disadvantage of not having been present when the noble Marquess moved the Motion and, therefore, I feel that possibly I have no right to intervene. All I wish to say is that I have been impressed by what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl opposite, and I hope the noble Marquess will give us a full
592
explanation if he is going to insist on the Order. If he could take it back and think again, I for one would be grateful.
4.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I did attempt to deal fairly fully with the points which the noble and learned Earl made when I made my first speech, in order that I might to some extent forestall what there was indication from the 1950 debate he was likely to say to-day. I certainly cannot contemplate the withdrawing of these Orders, because, as I said originally, I think it is perfectly right that they should be passed. The noble and learned Earl can always make an impressive case. By saying that, I do not for a moment suggest that he does not make a case in which he entirely believes. But what does it come down to in the end? He says that the purpose of an Affirmative Resolution in these cases was that each case should be looked at on its merits. I do not disagree with that for a moment; I think that that was the purpose of it. All I would say in regard to that is that when you are looking at it on its merits, you have also to look at it in the whole picture and see what its merits are in relation to other organisations which have already received similar privileges. That is one of the factors to be taken into account.
If you look at these particular organisations to which the noble and learned Earl takes exception, it will, I think, be found that they are not different from organisations like the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O. and others, in all of which cases Orders have already been made. When you come to try and differentiate and look at, for instance, the Postal Union on its merits, can you say that it has less merits than, for instance, the World Health Organisation has? The only difference between the two is that the Postal Union has done its job very well for some eighty years, and the World Health Organisation is a new one. But substantially they are both organisations on very much the same footing. If you look at the Postal Union with its long history, you will, I suggest, find that its merits are at least as commanding as the merits of the World Health Organisation, and those facts should commend it to your Lordships.

593
The noble and learned Earl puts the test that the privilege ought to be given only when it is necessary to the efficient functioning of the organisation. Very well. Was it necessary to the efficient functioning of the International Labour Organisation, to the efficient functioning of the World Health Organisation, to the efficient functioning of U.N.E.S.C.O.? If it was not necessary, why did the Government, in which the noble and learned Earl took so active a part, put forward and get accepted by this House the Orders extending the same privileges and immunities to those bodies? It must have been done upon some principle, and the principle surely was the principle which animated this Government, as it animated other Governments which were associated with them, in arriving at the conclusion upon which these agreements to give these privileges were based: that was, that, in the interests of the proper functioning of the body concerned, those privileges and immunities should be given to them. That was why the noble and learned Earl and his Government gave them to these bodies.
Surely, we are entitled to take that into consideration when we come to review on their merits these various other cases and say: "Here, too, they are on the same footing and we consider that they also for their proper functioning should have the privileges. If that one was found worthy, what justification is there for discriminating against the other one as unworthy?" I quite agree—I said so in my original speech, and I accepted what the late noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, said—that, when you confer privileges on some people, you inevitably impinge upon the rights of others; and that, of course, should not be done with a light heart. But, at the same time, if it is in the general interest that these privileges should be extended to these various organisations, then one must face the risk, really not a very large risk, that in some unfortunate cases there may be undeniable consequences of the kind to which the noble and learned Earl has referred.
As I have said before, this is not a question merely of this country taking a line of its own in the matter. It is a matter on which there has been consultation throughout with other countries
594
and in which agreements have in many cases been come to. In regard to the Specialised Agencies there is this actual Convention as to the extension of privileges and immunities to Specialised Agencies. These are Specialised Agencies, and in my submission to the House their position as such ought to be recognised by the extension to them of similar privileges and immunities as have already been extended to other bodies of a like kind.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISA TIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
4.34 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Universal Postal Union) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISA TIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE INTER NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICA TION UNION) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Telecommunication Union) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISA TIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE) (AMENDMENT) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) (Amendment) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISA TIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVI LEGES OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANISA TION) (AMENDMENT No. 2) DRAFT ORDER, 1954.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Civil Aviation Organisation) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISA TIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVI LEGES OF THE NORTH ATLAN TIC TREATY ORGANISATION) DRAFT ORDER, 1954.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISA TIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVI LEGES OF THE CUSTOMS CO- OPERATION COUNCIL) DRAFT ORDER, 1954.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Customs Co-operation Council) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INSURANCE CONTRACTS (WAR SETTLEMENT) (FINLAND) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
4.38 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to move, That the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) (Finland) Draft Order, 1954, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper are concerned with the same principle, and that, I hope, is an uncontroversial one. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to discuss them together. The Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) Act, 1952, enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to give effect to certain Agreements relating to insurance contracts which were in operation prior to the outbreak of war. Two such Agreements have been made so far, one with Finland on December 28, 1949, and one with Italy on June 1, 1954. In both cases, the insurance provisions which are annexed to the Agreements were drafted and agreed by the British and foreign insurance markets concerned. These provisions appear in the Schedules to the Draft Orders in Council which are to give them legal effect in the United Kingdom. The Finnish Government have already given legal effect in their country to the insurance provisions of the Finnish Agreement, and the Italian Government have undertaken to take similar action in respect of the provisions of the Agreement with Italy.
The broad principle of both Agreements is that direct contracts of insurance

597
in operation at the outbreak of the last war between an insurer and insured should remain intact, but that contracts of reinsurance then in operation should be treated as terminated at that date. Reinsurance differs from direct insurance in that, whereas under an insurance contract a person obtains from an insurer protection against loss or damage, under a reinsurance contract an insurer obtains from another insurer protection against certain of his liabilities under his direct contracts. Your Lordships may possibly be familiar with this process in its simpler name of "laying off" If a reinsurance or treaty of reinsurance is cancelled, the insurer may remain responsible for larger particular risks than would ordinarily he considered prudent; but, being professionally engaged in the business, he is generally in a position to obtain a fresh reinsurance cover. A private individual with, say, Finnish or Italian interests, on the other hand, is in no such position, and may be subject to ruinous loss if, contrary to his expectation, the insurance contract on which he relied has been abrogated by the war. The contracts which are maintained will not cover loss due to belligerent action by the forces of either country. This follows the settled rule of English law on the point.
The law in regard to the effect of war on insurance contracts is by no means clear and differs from country to country. In the interests of insurers and insured alike, it is desirable that any legal doubts should be removed without unnecessary recourse to litigation. What is more, the United Kingdom is the world's foremost international insurance market, and it is important that our insurers, who transact a considerable insurance business with Europe, should continue to hold their own on the Continent. The British insurance interests are to be congratulated on the part which they have played in the negotiation of these Agreements. The making and implementation of Agreements such as these is important for the maintenance of an atmosphere encouraging to future business. It is hoped that Agreements with other countries will shortly he made. As I say, these two
598
Agreements are not controversial, and I hope that they will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) (Finland) Draft Order, 1954, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
4.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF OHILWORTH: My Lords, how refreshing it is that after the noble Lord's noble friend has given away the rights and privileges of so many of this country's citizens, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, should be asking us to pass an Order which will to some considerable extent financially benefit this country! I congratulate the noble Lord on that. I also congratulate him on being so modest, because at least he gave the credit for these very difficult negotiations to the British insurance industry—and quite rightly so. I think the noble Lord will agree that insurance is a most valuable invisible export, which brings into this country a substantial amount of foreign currency. The noble Lord need have no fear that we are going to raise the slightest objection to this Motion. We hope that he will be able, and that the British insurance industry will be encouraged by the Board of Trade, to effect similar arrangements widely throughout Europe, and indeed wherever they can be conducted in any other part of the world. We congratulate the industry and we congratulate the noble Lord on bringing some slight breath of fresh air and hope to us after having allowed his noble friend really to put us into the depths of despondency.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INSURANCE CONTRACTS (WAR SETTLEMENT) (ITALY) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Draft Order be approved.
Moved, That the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) (Italy) Draft Order, 1954, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.