HL Deb 03 May 1961 vol 230 cc1273-95

3.2 p.m.

Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved on Tuesday, the 25th April, by the Marquess of Lansdowne: That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 27th of March last.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, on the Motion of my noble friend the Lord President of the 'Council, the debate on the Motion regarding the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, which we held on Tuesday of last week was adjourned. I undertook to have a further look at this Order so that I could deal fully with certain specific questions which were raised on it. My noble Leader gave your Lordships a further assurance, that I would come briefed also to deal with general issues, if need be beyond the specific questions relating to the E.F.T.A. Order. I hope I shall not fail to fulfil both those undertakings.

Many noble Lords considered that the number of persons enjoying diplomatic immunities and privileges in this country was already large and should not increase further without the closest Governmental scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, suggested that in time a substantial proportion of the foreign population of London would become exempt from United Kingdom law if the number of these Orders was left unchecked. I certainly see what he means. The fact is, however, that as government in all countries becomes an increasingly complex business, and as the nations of the world tend to become more and more interdependent, the number of international organisations of one kind or another inevitably continues to grow. This may be a good or a bad development, but it is certainly a development which we have all to recognise.

With the growth of international co-operation in all kinds of spheres, the number of international civil servants is also bound to increase. I may say that Her Majesty's Government use their influence in the organisations to which they belong to keep the establishment of officers serving on Organisations as low as possible. We are also concerned that those Organisations to which we belong should be effective, and that we should get good value for money out of our contributions to their expenses. I must draw a firm distinction between full diplomatic immunity and the much lesser scale accorded to the great majority of officers of International Organisations working in or visiting this country. The scale of immunity and privilege normally accorded to diplomats has a long history, and covers such things as inviolability of person, residence and archives; freedom of communication; exemption from local taxation and immunity from legal process. These privileges and immunities accorded to Ambassadors and High Commissioners and their staffs derive from Common Law, international practice and certain Acts of Parliament. They do not derive from the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, which is the Act under which these special Orders in Council are made.

The lesser scale of immunities, with which we are mainly concerned in reexamining this Order, consists only of immunity from legal process limited to official acts and exemption from income tax on official salaries, but on nothing else.

LORD KILLEARN

What about Customs?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Would the noble Lord allow me to develop my theme? If there are any questions he wishes to ask I shall be only too pleased to answer them later.

I think this distinction between full immunity and the lesser scale is important, and that this distinction became somewhat blurred in our debate last Tuesday. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, perfectly rightly reminded your Lordships that full immunities were enjoyed by nearly 6,000 persons in the United Kingdom. These figures relate to members of foreign diplomatic missions and Commonwealth High Commissioners' offices. I do not think noble Lords should grumble about the large number of Ambassadors there are in London to-day, when they consider the rapid progress to independence of so many new countries in the world. Surely we welcome their newly gained sovereignty. Surely we are only too glad that they should send an Ambassador or High Commissioner with supporting staff to this country.

As for International Organisations, only 252 persons are resident in the United Kingdom and enjoy any sort of immunity from legal process. Of this number, only three enjoy the full scale of privileges and immunities accorded to diplomats. Copies of the revised list of the International Organisations the staffs of which enjoy privileges and immunities have recently been prepared and are available in the Printed Paper Office. I have the list here, and I think perhaps, for your Lordships' convenience, I will not read the list out, particularly as it is available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office; but I suggest that, for the convenience of the House, and with your Lordships' permission, the revised list should be incorporated in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As far as E.F.T.A. itself is concerned, of its officers only the Secretary-General would, under this Order, enjoy the full scale of immunity in this country. Since, however, the present holder of the office is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, he will enjoy only the lesser scale of immunity granted to the other officers of E.F.T.A., of whom there are about 50. This means exemption from income tax on official salary and immunity from legal process for official acts.

Article 10 of the Order states that an officer of the Association shall enjoy immunity from suit and legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by him in the course of the performance of official duties. The immunity applies only in respect of official duties. In the case of junior executive, clerical or administrative staff, not assigned to hourly rates—about whom the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Hawke, showed concern—their official duties are very limited and would not, I think, be difficult to define. In the last resort, should any dispute arise it would be for the courts of this country to decide what were, and what were not, official duties.

It may be said that the phrase "official duties" is somewhat vague. This is a phrase that bas been in use for some time, and up to now no one has been able to devise a better one. But, as I have said, in the last resort it would be for the courts to decide. There is no intention at present to set up any office of E.F.T.A. in the United Kingdom. The immunities sought would apply, therefore, only to officers of the organisation and national representatives visiting the United Kingdom on the rare occasions when a meeting is held in London. As I think I told your Lordships last week, there is to be a meeting in London in June this year. This Order is therefore concerned with a very small number of people on the rare occasions when they will have to visit the United Kingdom.

This brings me to the second main point that was raised by several noble Lords, motoring and motoring offences. I am advised that motoring itself is seldom, if ever, in the context of these Orders, regarded as an official duty, except for persons employed as chauffeurs. A chauffeur would be eligible only for the lesser scale of privileges and immunities. The consequence of this is that, with the exception of the Secretary-General, who enjoys the full scale of diplomatic immunity, the remainder of the E.F.T.A. personnel would in traffic accidents or motoring offences be subject Ito the provisions of the Road Traffic Act. Third-party insurance is compulsory for them, and they can be sued for any damage caused or prosecuted for any motoring offence. This applies to all members of International Organisations other than those few high officers who enjoy the full scale of diplomatic immunity.

This brings me to a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, as to whether there exists any scheme whereby Her Majesty's Government can pay compensation to members of the public suffering damage by the act of persons covered under International Organisations Orders of this kind. There is no such scheme, and indeed it is not considered necessary, for, except in the case of those few high officers who enjoy the full scale of diplomatic immunity, compensation can be sought through an insurance company or by action in the courts in exactly the same way as if the driving was done by any private citizen. In the event of damage caused by the Secretary-General of E.F.T.A. himself, if your Lordships approve this Order, or by a chauffeur of the Organisation driving on duty, we should still expect the insurance company to pay up. The Association of Insurance Companies have undertaken not to invoke their clients' immunity to avoid paying compensation in dealing with claims for damages against such persons. So far as is known, immunity under Orders similar to the one that we are now considering has never—I repeat never—been invoked in a civil claim.

I should like to say a word about the prOliferation of "C.D." plates, to which the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Silkin, referred. It is quite correct to say that these can be bought almost anywhere, though I cannot accept that their abuse is as widespread as was suggested. The position is that there is no legislative basis for the existence or control of these plates, and they do not in themselves afford the occupant of a car so marked any privilege or immunity whatsoever. Her Majesty's Government are not contemplating making them the subject of legislation. We have considered the question of control of "C.D." plates very carefully, and I understand that the legislation that would be required for their control is much more complicated than one might at first imagine. However—and I do not want to be asked to go further on this point this afternoon—I can assure your Lordships that this question is under active review. I do not wan: to have to go further at the moment.

I now come to an important point made in turn by the noble Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, Lord Hawke and Lord Jessel, the question of the exemption of various persons from taxation, particularly the exemption of international civil servants, being United Kingdom citizens, from United Kingdom income tax. Provision is made in Article 10 of this Order for such exemption as regards official salary only for officers of the Association in question, but not for those recruited locally and assigned to hourly rates. There is a sound reason for this provision. If all member Governments of E.F.T.A. were to levy income tax in the normal way in their own countries on the salaries of the staff of the Organisation, or in particular if the Government where the headquarters are situated were to do so, the subscriptions of member Governments to the organisation would be increased accordingly, because these salaries are calculated with the tax franchise in mind. And it would also mean that Her Majesty's Government would be contributing to the exchequers of other Governments. Because of the considerable variation in the rates of taxation in the countries concerned, it is next to impossible to work out a common or equitable salary scale for such organisations. I should like your Lordships to consider this: since our share of the budget of these international organisations is usually very substantial, and we are contributing 30 per cent. of the E.F.T.A. budget this year, the benefit to ourselves of the existing arrangement is surely obvious.

I now come to the fundamental point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and by others: is the protection afforded by this Order to E.F.T.A. and to its staff really necessary at all, in seven such well-regulated and law-abiding European States? The answer is that such protection is necessary, but only on the very restricted scale which the E.F.T.A. Order or other similar Orders placed before Parliament would allow. The fact is that the majority of the countries that are parties with us to the agreements setting up these Organisations do attach value to conferring immunity on the Organisation. If the Organisation itself is to have immunity—and this is legally justified on the ground that individual Governments enjoy immunity from suit in each other's territory—it follows logically that the servants of the Organisation should enjoy immunity in respect of the performance of their official duties. The Privileges and Immunities Protocol to the E.F.T.A. Convention has in fact already been ratified by three of the parties, Austria, Denmark and Norway. If we are to enjoy the advantages of membership of the Organisation, this is part of the price which we must pay. In the case of E.F.T.A., the main burden of the present protocol will fall on our Swiss friends, as host to the Association's headquarters.

Finally, I must remind your Lordships that there are two important safeguards which would protect us against abuse of these immunities. First, the Protocol explicitly says in Article 9 that a party is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representatives if the course of justice might be impeded, and of course Her Majesty's Government would have no hesitation in asking for a waiver should such a situation arise. Secondly, the Protocol also provides that if a panty considers there has been abuse of privileges and immunities the complaining State has the right to require the offender to leave its territory.

It is most important that your Lordships and the public at large should realise that there is no reason for them to take any claim of diplomatic immunity at its face value. They can check up with the Foreign Office and see whether people claiming immunity really are entitled to claim it; and if the person claiming immunity has wronged them in any way, or if they believe him to have committed some crime, they should immediately get in touch with the Foreign Office to see what can be done about it. I can assure your Lordships that any incident brought to our attention at the Foreign Office will be carefully and promptly followed up. I hope that I have been able to satisfy your Lordships on the various questions in our previous debate, and that your Lordships will agree to the granting of these privileges and immunities to the European Free Trade Association. Before I sit down I should just like to reply to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn. Officers of the Association can import, free of duty, their furniture and effects when they are first taking up their posts, and have no other Customs exemptions whatsoever.

Following is the List of International Organisations entitled to Immunities and Privileges in the United Kingdom, referred to in Lord Lansdowne's Speech:

The following of the above organisations maintain Headquarters, branch offices or agencies in the United Kingdom:

United Nations.

International Labour Organisation.

Branch Office.

International Sugar Council.

Headquarters.

International Tin Council.

Headquarters.

International Wheat Council.

Headquarters.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Military Agency for Standardisation.

European Naval Communications Agency.

European Radio Frequency Agency.

Western European Union.

Headquarters.

Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.

Headquarters.

In addition, the European Coal and Steel Community maintains a Delegation in London whose members enjoy certain privileges and immunities.

3.32 p.m.

LORD SILKTN

My Lords, I am sure the House will be most grateful to the noble Marquess for his full statement on this particular Order. I am sure that if we had had this statement on the last occasion it might have saved a good deal of discussion. I am quite certain that few noble Lords realised that there were two types of immunity—full immunity and partial immunity—and that the full immunity was limited to particular types of people. Of course, we are discussing on this Order the particular question of the European Free Trade Association, but, in considering this most people had in mind the general question of immunities, which it was felt were growing to such an extent as to become alarming. The noble Marquess has certainly alleviated a good deal of our apprehensions on the subject, but not quite all. No one has suggested that there should be no immunity at all; nor do we suggest in the case of organisations of this kind, where we appreciate the immunity is reciprocal, that we should not grant immunity to certain people who come here in performance of their duties. We were rather concerned that the numbers were growing, and tending to grow, larger and larger.

If the debate we had last week had no other purpose, at least it brought to the notice of the Government our apprehensions that these numbers should not be allowed to grow without most careful scrutiny by the Government. I understand that that scrutiny will take place, and that nobody will be given immunity without the greatest care being taken that it is necessary. I want to say one word on the question of immunity. I do not think that the noble Marquess has entirely resolved my own concern on the subject. The lesser immunity relates to all acts done by a person in the course of the performance of official duties. The noble Marquess rather assumed that there were few matters that might arise in the course of the performance of a person's official duties, but I would point out that the particular concern that was voiced most by those noble Lords who spoke was the possibility of accidents on the road; and in connection with accidents the difficulty does arise of persons who travel to and from a particular meeting in cars. I suggest that in connection with that kind of incident Article 10 (a) would give immunity to the individual involved in the accident, if it was an accident which arose while the officer was going to or from a particular meeting concerned, in this case, with E.F.T.A.

I am not happy about the position of a person who is injured. The noble Marquess referred to an insurance company. But is the officer who receives the immunity obliged to insure at all? What happens if he is not insured? He is immune; he has diplomatic immunity in connection with the journeys that he is making. Of course, if he is wise he will insure, because no doubt he will be making journeys other than to and from meetings, for which he will not be receiving immunity. But in the, let us call it, unlikely event of his not being insured in respect of such journeys, what happens to persons injured? They would have no remedy. Furthermore, is such a person who is injured to be entirely at the mercy of an insurance company? Those of us who have some experience of dealing with insurance companies know that there is a big difference in the way they treat people (a) when they are under a legal obligation, and (b) when they are under no legal obligation.

I feel that while it would be sound policy to give people a certain amount of diplomatic immunity, it ought not to be done at the expense of citizens of this country who may suffer injury; and, if they have no full recourse to the person who inflicts the injury, then that loss ought to be made good by the British Government who grant the immunity. I should like to see the Government accepting full legal responsibility for any injury done to citizens by persons who have this diplomatic immunity.

I think that is where the real difficulty arises. If the noble Marquess could give such an assurance that this matter is being carefully looked into, and that people who suffer at the hands of persons who have diplomatic immunity, whether full or in part, will not have to bear the burden themselves, then I think it would go some way to relieving the minds of those noble Lords who raised this point and who have expressed their apprehensions.

Generally, I would say that, speaking for myself and my noble friends, we have no objection to the principle of granting diplomatic immunity in cases where it is reciprocal. We want to be quite satisfied that the numbers involved are kept under close scrutiny, and we want further to be satisfied that individuals who suffer as a result of this immunity will not have to bear the loss themselves, individually, but that that loss will be made good in some other way.

3.40 p.m.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, there is no doubt that the very clear and full explanation, exposé, given by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has cleared the air quite a lot. There is, of course, an unfortunate confusion in the very terms used: "diplomatic privilege" and "diplomatic immunity." They are quite different things. Those terms are used rather indiscriminately. Diplomatic privilege belongs properly to the main body of diplomats. The immunities, which are also enjoyed by the diplomats, are enjoyed by other bodies as well; and the use of this phrase has, quite naturally, rather led to confusion of thought. That has been very clearly disposed of by the noble Marquess's statement. Diplomatic privilege is enjoyed by diplomats, Ambassadors and their diplomatic staff; it is concerned with privileges. Immunity is rather different.

To pass on a little from that point, I am very startled by something I have learnt since our last discussion a few days ago. I looked up the list of these non-diplomatic bodies—I do not quite know what to call them: bodies other than Embassies and such. In 1955, when we had a full debate in this House, I quoted a list, which, in fact, had been supplied to me by the Foreign Office in reply to a Written Question. It is actually quoted in the debate of November 16, 1955. The column is No. 583, and I mention it in case anybody wants to look at it. I make the total number of bodies named 18. On May 1, after our debate, I put in a second Question for Written Answer asking if that list could be brought up to date. It now has been, and I was handed this list, which has been quoted by the noble Marquess and which I think is probably in response to that Question. My mathematics may be wrong, but I make the number 41.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has done his mathematics wrongly. In the first list the number is 27 and in the second list it is 8.

LORD KILLEARN

Eight in this list?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Yes.

LORD KILLEARN

There are two pages of print and I make the number 41. I do not know, my Lords. Your Lordships will have to do your own addition for yourselves, and this will appear in the Record. I have here a list, which was handed to me this afternoon and quoted by the noble Marquess. It will be in the Record, but I have totted the number up and I make it 41. It is a question of arithmetic, and I do not pretend to be good at sums and figures. I also think that the earlier number was 18, in the column I have quoted. However, the point I am trying to make is that if my calculation is correct—the noble Marquess thinks it is not—to jump from 18 in 1955 to 41 in 1960 seems to be pretty rapid progress. We all know that the House does not like this system of immunity—I am talking about immunity, not diplomatic privilege. The real point which all this discussion has called attention to is a point we all feel rather keenly about, and our discussion will, I hope, accentuate careful scrutiny of any extension of the list. I still think, if my sums are correct, that five years is too short a time in which to jump from 18 to 41.

I revert for a moment to privilege, which is quite another story. We all know why an Ambassador and his staff have privilege. That dates back for centuries. It was arranged so that the representative of a foreign Power should not be subject to pressure by the Government of the country in which he was stationed; and that is perfectly right and proper. But we are now told to-day that there are 6,000 people with diplomatic privilege. That is quite a lot. In my young day there were eight Embassies here. The last time I spoke on this subject (I have not checked up again) there were 67, and I believe that there are now 72. If we are going to extend that system it is quite a serious thing. Six thousand people get the privileges, I gather—I am not sure. They cover customs duties and all sorts of things. But the main point we are interested in is that this rather unusual type of extra-territorial jurisdiction, which is what it comes to, should be strictly scrutinised and limited to the utmost extent, for a variety of reasons. I am sure that on that particular ground the noble Marquess will entirely agree with me.

3.45 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I, on behalf of some of those who spoke from these Benches, very much welcome the statement that was made by my noble friend this afternoon and the very careful and clear analysis he made of the whole subject? I think that the whole House is very much indebted to him, and I am certain that they will be anxious to pass the present Motion without further delay in the interests of a body which I know commands the approval of the whole House. I respectfully agree with what my noble friend said in the separation, as I might call it, of the two classes of immunity: the immunity enjoyed by the Ambassadors of particular countries and their staffs, with which we have lone been familiar, and the immunities granted to some of these international bodies.

My Lords, I remember (it is now some 11 years ago) that when it was proposed to give to almost the first of these international bodies such immunities as we are now considering—that was the 'Universal Postal Union—in a debate in another place on July 19, 1950, I was among the critics of the proposal to give the Universal Postal Union those privileges. I find that I was in the good company of the present Minister of Health, the present Attorney General, the present Minister of Pensions, and Mr. Lionel Heald, as he then was. We all criticised that proposal. One of the grounds on which we criticised it was that the Universal Postal Union had existed from 1874 to 1950 perfectly happily without any diplomatic privileges, and we could not see that there was a very strong case, after three-quarters of a century of successful functioning without privilege, why they should be given it. Nevertheless, my Lords, our views did not prevail and the privileges were granted to that body.

I agree completely with the present view of Her Majesty's Government, that, chat having been done, we really cannot oppose the modest extension of the number of international bodies that are going to enjoy such immunity. I think that the European Free Trade Association is very properly made a body corporate and is very properly made a body which shall have the immunities that are set out in the document and that have been explained by my noble friend. I think that almost the only criticism remaining is that which 'was made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: that even in the case of the restricted immunity, a British subject can in certain circumstances be put at a disadvantage. With great respect, I think I should agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the possible application of Article 10 (a) went rather further than was suggested by my noble friend. I should have thought, on my reading, that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was right in his interpretation. But, my Lords, that is really not an objection to this particular Order, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, himself really shared that view. It is quite impossible to give any diplomatic privilege without involving a British subject, conceivably, in legal disabilities and hardship. That is the nature of immunity.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests—and I am rather attracted by his suggestion—that Her Majesty's Government might make themselves responsible for making good to the British citizens concerned any injury that they may suffer as a consequence. But that, of course, is not limited in any way to this Order. It would extend to all diplomatic privileges, not only those in this field but those which are enjoyed by the Ambassadors and staff of ordinary Embassies. I think that what we are concerned with, my Lords, is that the number of international bodies that are granted the privileges that my noble friend has described should not be enlarged unnecessarily, and that the privileges themselves should be very carefully considered. I 'hope very much that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be carefully considered, but it in no way applies especially to the Order we are now considering: it covers, of course, the whole field of diplomatic privileges and immunities. But I conclude as I began, by thanking my noble friend very much for the clarity and completeness of his statement, and by expressing the very strong hope that this present Motion will be passed without delay.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, could I address one or two questions to the noble Marquess, apart from thanking him for his very comprehensive and helpful exposition of this particular Order? The first is: in its powers, this Order appears to go considerably beyond the proposals which have been agreed recently by our representative at Geneva—where we were one of 82 nations—and which presumably will be ratified not only by Her Majesty's Government butt by, we hope, enough Governments. The Order that we are discussing, in the immunities it grants, goes beyond the proposals which we have now agreed with the other nations. Will Her Majesty's Government therefore bring in amending Orders when those newly agreed proposals have been ratified—proposals which are obviously less in the immunities they grant than the ones in the Order which we Shall no doubt approve this afternoon?

The second question is this. Although the noble Marquess quite rightly said that, for a large number of people, there is lesser immunity, those lesser immunities do nevertheless cover exemptions from income tax, which he explained, and immunity from legal process in respect of official acts. Will those, too, be the subject of reconsideration when the new international Agreement is considered? And will Her Majesty's Government also consider the position of at least one class of persons to whom full immunity is now granted? He mentioned that he agreed with me that full immunity is now granted to 6,000 persons, and I have no quarrel with that at all except when that means (in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn) "non-diplomatic privilege"; but 1,800 of those 6,000 persons are the wives of diplomats. When the Government are looking at this matter again, ought they not to give consideration to the grant of a somewhat lesser immunity to the wives of diplomats than that which is granted to the diplomats themselves? It seems to me that that is a reasonable proposition.

The last question is on the point of motoring offences. The noble Marquess said, and I have no doubt quite rightly, that "C.D." plates do not confer any kind of immunity; that Her Majesty's Government have considered the control of "C.D." plates, which they think very complicated, and do not want to be asked any questions about it. That I understand. But it is the general impression of the public—at least, such an uninformed member of the public as myself—that "C.D." plates do convey a sort of "untouchability". Next time I am almost forced off the road by an unmannerly chauffeur of a car bearing "C.D." plates I shall fully avail myself of the privilege and shall convey the number to the noble Marquess and ask him to take appropriate action. But, my Lords, do the police know that these "C.D." plates do not really mean a thing, and that they ought to take these cases up when they get unmannerly drivers of cars carrying "C.D." plates? This is the kind of thing which causes concern to the general public, and I think quite rightly. If the noble Marquess can give us some reply on those points, we shall feel much happier about passing this Order, as I am sure we shall do this afternoon.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, may I ask the Minister about one point, and put it in the form of a question? As I understand it, those British citizens who are granted immunity are exempt from taxation only on their official salaries. My question is this: suppose an official, a British citizen, has a salary of £4,000 a year, and is also in the fortunate position of having a private income of £4,000 a year. Would the Special Commissioners in fact assess him in respect of £8,000, on his total income, or would they assess him in respect of £4,000 only? Because, if they disregard the £4,000, be is indeed getting a "round-the-corner" advantage on his British income, on British taxation. No doubt the Minister will be able to answer that query quite simply.

3.57 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has asked me to consider this matter both generally and from the legal aspect. I hope I shall take a very brief period of your Lordships' time, but in view of the great interest which your Lordships showed in this subject I felt that I might usefully say a few words. On the general question, I do not want to go into the history of this matter at any length, but I think it is extremely important, when we are forming our general approach to it, that we should realise how the line came to be drawn. The immunity given to an Ambassador, of course, goes back centuries of our history, and the Act of Queen Anne which put it into statutory form is generally believed merely to express the Common Law as it existed at that time. But the interesting fact is that that continued without any substantial inroad until the end of the 1914–18 War; and, of course, it is that branch of the immunity (if I may use that word) which covers the vast majority of the 6,000 persons to whom the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred.

My Lords, so far as my researches go, there have been only three changes in that rule—to include the Arbitrators under The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Judges of the International Court. But the position did change when the world tried to introduce forms and instruments of international co-operation. Forty years ago officials of the League of Nations engaged on the business of the League were given, the right to have diplomatic privileges.

Then towards the end of the Second World War, the Government, of which I had the honour to be a member, in 1944 passed the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act which made provision for privileges and immunities for International Organisations, of which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and foreign Governments were members. The Charter of the United Nations had a similar provision (I am summarising; noble Lords will not hold me to the foot of the letter); there was an International Convention in 1946, and in 1947 another which covered the Specialised Agencies. Then in 1949 the Government, under the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wanted to make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and myself should not be released on the Continent of Europe under the ægis of the Council of Europe without having diplomatic immunity, and so secured it for the members of the Council of Europe. The next year our predecessors passed the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, and later changed that into the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, under which these Orders are made. My Lords, in order to be sure that I am not throwing the political ball about, I would add that in 1952 the Conservative Government gave diplomatic immunities to representatives of members of the Commonwealth.

I think that shows that the tendency is one which we have to accept, as my noble friend said, as the price of international co-operation. On the point which your Lordships raised, whether immunities were necessary, it is interesting that there was an Inter-Departmental Committee in 1949, which reported in July, 1951, and one of the things they reported was that the immunities then granted were either certainly or probably required by International Law, and that, subject to the position of a domestic servant, no change was recommended. My noble friend Lord Killearn stated shortly the reasons on which they relied, and I think it is just worth mentioning them as we are considering the whole subject. I put it in the words of my old friend the late Professor Lauterpacht, a Judge of the International Court and one of the leading international lawyers of our day. He said: Diplomatic privileges and immunities are inseparable attributes of diplomatic envoys, since in order to be able to fulfil their duties envoys must be independent of the jurisdiction and control of the receiving State. Without these privileges they would be more or less dependent upon the goodwill of the Government". The interesting thing is that that was confirmed, as I said, in 1949.

Now that is the position. I think the problem that has worried all your Lordships is as to what action we should take in view of the developing number of international and Commonwealth associations. I think there are two things to which we should direct our minds, and my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has really dealt with them. In the first place, whenever it is possible there should be a limitation on the number of those who enjoy the full immunity, and we should secure that as many people as possible of those entitled to immunity are under the limited immunity. Your Lordships will see the difference; it is put conveniently between paragraph 9 and paragraph 10 of this Order. That raises, in turn, a number of questions. As has been pointed out, and as I think your Lordships entirely accept at this stage of the debate, this has been done in regard to E.F.T.A.; and as far as E.F.T.A. itself is concerned, of its officers only the Secretary-General would, under this Order, enjoy the full scale of immunity in this country. As my noble friend Lord Lansdowne pointed out, since the present holder of the office is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, he will enjoy only the lesser scale of immunity granted to other officers of E.F.T.A.

I think everyone agrees that immunity from suit and legal process in respect of words spoken and written is entirely essential. It would be quite hopeless if someone had to think whether some person would bring an action for libel or slander when he was making his report, and I think we are all clear on that point. As to what is "official duties", I agree with my noble friend that, in the end, that is a matter on which the court could decide

The second way in which we should approach it is to see what alleviation it is possible to give to those affected by the immunities. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford said that you cannot give immunities without affecting people. There we come to the point that was raised, and raised very pertinently, by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. He was still rather worried about the motoring aspect of the matter. I have considered it, and apart from marginal, and on the whole rather fantastic, examples, motoring would seldom, under these Orders, be regarded as official duty except for persons employed as chauffeurs. The position, therefore, is that if someone with the limited immunity is going to run a car, he would, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought, in almost every case be compelled to take out a third-party insurance, because the danger of moving from official duties to any other would be so great. I do not think that the possibility of someone bringing a car over here and using it only for official duties is one that is very great.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but may I ask whether, under our law, you can drive a car on the road without third-party insurance? I thought that was against the law.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes. But we are considering whether people should have immunity from the law.

LORD KILLEARN

Yes, quite right.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, that is the position. I am not dealing with the position of people in this country who are not in the diplomatic service or in the service of these international institutions. My noble friend is quite right about the ordinary citizen, and I advise him to renew his motor-car insurance policy.

LORD KILLEARN

But, from the practical point of view, could a man register his car? Because the first thing they would say is: "Where is your insurance?" How does he get over that?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the point I am making is this; I am sorry if I did not make it clear. When someone has limited immunity, so that that immunity applies only to something he does in the course of his official duties, it is not likely that he will have a car over here which he will use solely for official duties. The variety of life is such that one may well move from an official duty into a private purpose after the start of the day, or even after the start of a journey. Therefore, if the car is liable to be used for both official duties and private purposes he will have to take out a third-party insurance according to the law. I hope that I have made it clear. I am grateful to my noble friend, as I wanted to make the point clear. With regard to those who have the full-scale immunity, as my noble friend said, we hope that they will insure; and in most cases there are the means, which he described, of ensuring that they will pay up.

I come to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, one of the few about which he was worried, in regard to insurance. I think that the important aspect of it is that the Association of Insurance Companies have undertaken not to invoke their clients' immunity to avoid paying compensation in dealing with claims for damages against them; and so far as I know, immunity under Orders similar to this one has never been invoked in a civil claim. I do not want to go into the legal technicalities with the noble Lord and take up your Lordships' time, but when the companies have undertaken that they will not do this—most policies, as the noble Lord knows, contain a clause that the company will have the right to run any case—I think that we can take it that they will stand by their undertaking. As the noble Lord knows, the Motor Insurance Bureau has given a similar undertaking with regard to those who are not insured for what I might call minimally culpable reasons.

So, my Lords, I think that we have provided alleviation there. Of course I will see that what the noble Lord suggests is looked into—that goes without saying. But I believe—and my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has explained the scheme in detail—that we have a method which is workable. We are keeping it under review and will consider what the noble Lord said.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, what it amounts to, then, is that the number of cases in which a British citizen might suffer by reason of the steps that have been taken will be very small indeed. In that case the difficulty of indemnifying the odd case would not be very great. Could not the Government go so far as to say that, in the odd case where the citizen was not covered by these arrangements, they would step in and see that he was indemnified.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I should not like to say that there could not be such a case. As the noble Lord will realise, I cannot go further this afternoon than to say that the matter will be considered. But he will appreciate that I have dealt with those who have the limited immunity. We believe that those who have the full immunity will be covered; and if they are not there is still the machinery of waiver and of diplomatic pressure, which my noble friend mentioned, so that the field is covered. But I am not going to say that there could not be such a case, and I am quite prepared to see that it is looked into.

The same applies to the interesting points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I do not think that the international consideration is yet at the stage when I can announce the final position. I think that the consideration ceased only a few days ago. I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied if I say that we will certainly look into his suggestion. Obviously, we will consider carefully the proposals which have been agreed by the international gathering—not only carefully, but also, naturally, sympathetically, because they have received support. The same applies to the other points which he raised, which I have noted and which I will see are considered. I do not think that he will expect me to go further. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has asked me to give an immediate answer to a point on income tax. In all my 30 years at the Bar, I was never brave enough to do that. All I can say is that the noble Lord's reasoning seems to me eminently reasonable, if I may repeat the word, but I should be glad if he would allow me to consider the point and write to him. I am fully aware of the point he raised.

I am sorry to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, especially of those waiting impatiently for the Air Estimates debate, but I sensed a real feeling of concern amongst noble Lords in discussing this matter. I hope that your Lordships will now feel that certainly my noble friend, and to a lesser degree I myself, have tried to meet the feeling of the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.