HL Deb 21 October 1954 vol 189 cc584-94

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.