HL Deb 21 February 1961 vol 228 cc1001-8

5.21 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Diplomatic immunities of Commonwealth representatives attending conferences

1.—

(4) A person who is a member of the official staff of a representative of the government of a country to which this section applies and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is not a citizen of that country shall not be entitled under the foregoing provisions of this section to any immunity except in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties, and the name of a person whose immunity is limited by this subsection shall be entered in a separate part of any list compiled by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of this section.

LORD OGMOREmoved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down because, as your Lordships may remember, on Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who is in charge of this Bill for the Government, and I were at cross-purposes. I am quite sure that that was my fault and that it arose out of the fact that I did not explain my point clearly enough. But, at all events, as it transpired, we were almost talking about a different clause. Therefore, I thought I had better put any Amendment down to-day so that we can get the thing put on a proper basis.

My point is that, under Clause 4, a person who is a member of an official staff of a Government of a country and conies over here on a delegation, and who happens to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, does not get the full diplomatic privileges which the other members of the same delegation get when they are in this country. If that is so, it seems to me that there is an onus on the Government to show why that is so. Obviously, it puts the unfortunate person concerned into a very difficult position, or it may do, if he finds himself in many ways completely unprotected—not in all ways but in many ways—where his colleagues on the delegation are protected. I have an idea (I may be completely wrong) that when the draftsman was drafting this measure, he was thinking rather of people from this country who go out, let us say, to Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada, and who enter the service of the Government, perhaps, for a short time and come back on a delegation.

Of course, the Commonwealth, as we all know, has expanded tremendously, and the term "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" embraces a vast range of people who have never been in this country at all, and probably never will come to this country unless they happen to come on a delegation. They may be Jamaicans who are in the service of the Government of Nigeria; and it is a fact that a number of West Indians are in the service of Nigeria. They may be Singaporeans in the service of Malaya: and d have no doubt that there are some so employed. They may be people from Hong Kong who are in the service of Malaya. More likely still—this is quite a likely case—there may be a joint delegation from the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, say, on defence, or finance, or on a hundred and one things; and the extraordinary thing about that joint delegation would be that all the Malayans would come under the full protection of this Bill, but the Singaporeans would not. They would not have full protection. They would have some protection, of course, in accordance with their official duties, but they would not have the wider protection which is given by this Bill.

It seems to me that this is a matter which the Government should clear up. We have not yet had an answer to the point which I put, because, as I say, I put it so badly that the noble Lord did not, in fact, reply to it. But I think that this Committee to-day ought to have an answer which goes at least some way the Government have looked into this position, have it in mind, and are quite sure and can assure us that equity is going to be done. At the moment, as I say, it seems to me that they are laying up for themselves possibly a good deal of trouble. I can just imagine some of the things that would happen if this clause were to go through as it is at present drawn. However, I do not wish to make heavy weather of it. It will not affect a great many people, but it might affect the sort of person whose case would be very highly publicised if anything went wrong. In any case, I think we shall all agree that justice ought to be done. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Ogmore.)

LORD CONESFORD

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, always speaks very persuasively, and I differ from him always with reluctance. Nevertheless, I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, talked of the injustice that might be done to the man who does not enjoy full diplomatic immunity. But what I desire the Committee to bear in mind is the injustice that is often done to a person who has a claim against the person who claims diplomatic immunity. For that reason, it has hitherto been the common policy of every political Party in this country, I think, to restrict diplomatic immunity, so far as it can be properly restricted, having regard to the comity of nations and considerations of that kind. The person who the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, fears will not enjoy complete diplomatic immunity will, under the Bill as it stands, enjoy immunity as regards things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties. Surely it is not wrong that a person who has our nationality should, in our own country, be liable to the ordinary processes of the law as regards acts which have nothing to do with his official duties.

If I may mention a case in which I was concerned when I was practising at the Bar, a case very many years ago (I shall not mention the nationality con- cerned), I remember an appalling injury, for which there was no redress, inflicted on a British midwife who had given services in this country to the household of a man who successfully claimed diplomatic immunity when called upon to pay the bill. It was quite impossible to get payment for that poor woman. That was an inevitable result that can be worked by diplomatic immunity. I do beg every member of the Committee to realise that when we are talking about conferring diplomatic immunity, we should not only bear in mind those on whom diplomatic immunity is conferred but also bear in mind the position of people who may have claims against them. By reason of their diplomatic immunity, nothing can be done to help the injured party.

I am not putting that forward as an argument against what is proposed in this Bill. What is proposed in this Bill enables diplomatic immunity to be conferred, in accordance with considerations which we can all understand, on the visiting representatives of other countries, but when one of the staff concerned is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, I say that no unnecessary restriction is placed on his diplomatic immunity if that immunity is confined to things done or things omitted in the course of that person's official duties. For these reasons, I very much hope that in the interests of, among other things, the liberalism which the noble Lord now professes, the Government will resist this Amendment.

5.32 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

First of all, I must deny the "soft self-impeachment" of the noble Lord in suggesting that it was entirely his own fault that we misunderstood each other the other day. He was good enough to tell me before the Committee that part of our misunderstanding was cleared up in the letter which I addressed to him yesterday, and we are now discussing what remains. As the noble Lord has reminded us, in the course of the Second Reading debate both the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Silkin, expressed concern over this qualification, affecting citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are not also citizens of the country represented.

There is more than one reason, more reasons even than those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Conesford, in favour of retaining subsection (4) in Clause 1. First of all, this subsection embodies longstanding and, I think I can say, universal practice in these matters. It has never been our custom to confer such immunity on our own citizens, and International Law places no obligation on us to do so. This is a widely recognised principle. It has been recognised, for example, in the text of a draft Convention on Diplomatic Intercourse which will be discussed at a conference in Vienna next month. The relative draft article states that a diplomatic agent who is a national of the State in which he is serving shall enjoy inviolability and immunity from jurisdiction in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.

Secondly, our domestic legislation is to the same effect. The Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, which was mentioned last week and which confers immunity upon Commonwealth High Commissioners and their staffs, contains a similar provision and a similar limitation exists in the case of the staffs of foreign envoys to this country. Section 2 of the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act, 1955, which I did not mention on the last occasion, was passed with this very object. It provides that a United Kingdom citizen shall not be entitled to "personal immunities", which are defined as Immunity from suit and legal process (except in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of official duties) and inviolability of residence. I do not wish to—and, indeed, I could not—ignore the persuasiveness; of some of the noble Lord's arguments. He had in mind the case of a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies, normally resident in a Colony, or perhaps in this country, who is appointed to the staff of a delegation from an independent country—in this case an independent Commonwealth country. This can, and, as the noble Lord said, does happen. But how are we to distinguish between such people and other citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies? So far as I know, the noble Lord made no suggestion as to how we could distinguish between those who live here and those who live abroad. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, wherever they live, have a common status, a common status which carries considerable advantages with it.

Let us take the case of a United Kingdom citizen who is not a citizen of the country represented and who is resident in this country, and who would also therefore he covered. This is not the type of person whom the noble Lord has in mind, but under the Amendment which he has moved, he would be included. This sort of person has obligations which have no connection whatever with his official duties. He pays taxes and he is liable to suit or prosecution for any acts lie may commit—let us say, acts which affect the interests of his permanent neighbours. I cannot see any justification for saying that such a person should not be liable to taxation on his income, and that the normal remedies of law should not be available to anyone who suffers by reason of acts having no connection at all with the conference.

In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be wrong to enlarge the degree of immunity in order to avoid an expression which in practice has never caused any trouble. In fact, it would run counter to the desires expressed on both sides of the House—particularly, I may say, on the other side of the House—before and ever since the passing of the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act., 1955, and, moreover, would be likely to cause the sort of resentment referred to by my noble friend Lord Conesford. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that, although I see the point of his; argument, the Amendment: he has moved would not help the Bill and would be unworkable.

LORD OGMORE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the care which he has taken in his reply, and I think that the Committee will be satisfied that we now have had the Government's view, which we had not had before, on this case, on which I think he would agree difficulty may arise in future. I suspect strongly that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had not given this subject the care and attention which he normally gives to subjects before he expresses himself on them. Whether liberal or otherwise, I am against any undue extension of diplomatic privileges—indeed, we all are. I am not dealing with the wider question which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, introduced to-day, but with the Amendment now before the Committee. I should have been prepared to go into the wider question, but I did not think that it was in order.

As Lord St. Oswald has so rightly said, in this country we are in a different position from other countries. Most other countries have a metropolitan area and not much else; but we have 30 million people in overseas Britain, who have to be treated as people of this country under the law, because legally we are all considered as one, though in practice we are very different people. It would be a matter of considerable surprise if a man who normally resided in Sarawak were told on a visit to this country that he was treated in exactly the same way as a man normally resident in Swindon. When we are dealing with this question, this is the dilemma which arises and it is apparent here. On weighing up one thing and another, I am bound to say that in the present circumstances the Government have the better case. I do not feel that my case is so strong that I can ask your Lordships to divide, but I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there is a case, even if it is a weaker case, on the other side. I hope that it will never be found that the Government are in any embarrassment because of the sort of circumstances to which I have been alluding. After that exposition by the noble Lord, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD CONESFORD

May I intervene before that Question is put? I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that I gave this the best consideration I could, and I am still of exactly the same opinion. The fallacy of his original speech, and of the speech he has just delivered, is the fallacy that somebody suffers an appalling injury by being subject to English law; and it comes somewhat curiously from a noble Lord in his profession. Speaking as a member of the Bar, I differ from him entirely. The British citizen in this country suffers no possible outrage by being subject to English law. If he is given complete immunity as regards any act or omissions of which he may be guilty in the service of the delegation of which he is for the time being a member, he suffers no disability for which we need sympathise. On the other hand, if the noble Lord's Amendment had been adopted, everybody whom he might injure while in this country would have suffered the outrageous injury of being injured by another British citizen against whom he would have no redress.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.