HL Deb 21 October 1954 vol 189 cc570-83

3.16 p.m.

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 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 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. 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 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 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."

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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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.