§ 12.2 a.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD)My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1 [Organisations of which United Kingdom is a member]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHAt this witching hour—the very witching hour—I am not going to delay your Lordships more than a moment. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for answering most of the points which I raised during the debate on Second Reading, but I should like to 194 raise again one general point with which I think the noble Lord did not deal very fully, and that is the question of reciprocity. Referring to the granting of these privileges, he said in his opening speech:
It is difficult to rest this on a basis of reciprocity since reciprocity will occur between the host Government and the organisation, but in practice there are many organisations which are operating in many other countries and we may well be a member of those organisations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/4/68, col. 933.]But the point, as I see it, really is this: Will these organisations have the same privileges in practice when operating in other countries as they do in Britain? Presumably the 1961 and 1963 Vienna Conventions laid down a certain scale of immunities which the countries who signed these Conventions observe.Does this Bill give additional—and I underline the word "additional"— privileges and immunities which are not included in these Conventions?. If so, how can we be sure that other countries will accord similar immunities to international organisations that we do? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clear up this point.
It so happens that over the weekend I was speaking to a friend who had recently returned from our Embassy in Moscow, and he was complaining that in certain matters there was no reciprocity between our two countries. He said, for example, that members of the Soviet Embassy in London were able to drive to their country place at Hawkhurst quite freely, whereas members of our Embassy in Moscow were not given similar freedom. I wonder whether the same practical lack of reciprocity would apply as between the headquarters of an international organisation situated in Moscow and those of an organisation in this country. No doubt the accepted ground rules are much the same in our respective countries, but in practice certain diplomats from other countries seem to have greater freedom in this country than ours do in theirs I do not doubt that this is so, and I should particularly like to make the point, that, in the main, it may be in our true interests to give more than we receive in this respect. Even so we should watch this situation carefully, but I hope that in the long run certain 195 other countries will reciprocate fully by respecting not only the letter of international agreements but their spirit. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to say something on this point.
§ LORD SHEPHERDThe instance given by the noble Earl was in relation to diplomatic immunities and privileges. Here we are dealing with a different aspect; that is to say, with organisations which may have their headquarters or place of meeting in this country.
§ LORD SHEPHERDIn practice, certainly among European countries, we fall behind what is granted by others. One of the purposes of this Bill is to be able to match them in the privileges and immunities which are granted to the type of organisations covered by this Bill. As the noble Earl is aware, no grant of immunities or privileges beyond Schedule 1 can be made, and in any case all the immunities and privileges must receive Parliamentary consent. Therefore, we shall have the opportunity to look at each and every one as it is presented to Parliament.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Commission of the European Communities]:
§ LORD SHEPHERDAmendment No. 1 seeks to bring Clause 3 into line with Clause 2, by making it possible to confer on families of senior staff of delegations from the Commission of the European Communities the customs privileges which may be conferred on the senior staff themselves. A similar provision is contained in Clause 2(3) in regard to senior staff members of Specialised Agencies of the United Nations with their headquarters in the United Kingdom. It is intended that the privileges given to senior staff of the Commission and to Specialised Agencies situated in the United Kingdom should, so far as possible, correspond. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 5, line 6, at end insert:
("and, where the exemptions, privileges and reliefs referred to in paragraph (b) of this
196
subsection are so conferred on any such officers, Her Majesty may by the same or any other Order in Council confer the like exemptions, privileges and reliefs on persons who are members of he families of those officers and form part of their households".)—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to.
§ Clause 12 [Consequential amendments, repeals and transitional provisions]:
§ LORD SHEPHERDThis Amendment is consequential upon the passing of the Consular Relations Act 1968. Since this Bill is intended to replace the 1950 Act, it is necessary to insert a reference to it in the Consular Relations Act. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
("() In the Consular Relations Act 196S, at the end of section 1(3) there shall be inserted the words "or the International Organisations Act 1968"")—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD SHEPHERDThis Amendment is of a drafting nature. Its purpose is to make sure that the terms of the Bill give effect to its intention. I beg to move;
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
("and, while any such Order in Council continues to have effect in relation to an organisation,—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 13 agreed to.
§ Schedule 1 [Privileges and immunities]:
§ LORD SHEPHERDWith the permission of the House I shall move Amendment No. 4, but will speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. These are purely drafting Amendments. The present drafting suggests that the domestic servant of a representative could receive exemption from income tax in 197 respect of his employment only to the extent that the representative himself was entitled to exemption from income tax in respect of the employment of his domestic servant. The revised drafting removes this incorrect implication. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, at end insert ("and")—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI beg to move Amendment No. 5.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, leave out lines 17 and 18.—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI beg to move Amendment No. 6.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, at end insert "and shall be entitled to exemption from taxes on his amoluments in respect of that employment to the like extent as, by virtue of the relevant Order, that representative is entitled to exemption from taxes on his emoluments as a representative ".—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 12.12 a.m.
§
LORD SHEPHERD moved, after paragraph 23, to insert:
() Persons who are members of the family and form part of the household of such a member of the official staff as is mentioned in paragraph 20 of this Schedule shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities set out in Part II of this Schedule to the like extent as, by virtue of that paragraph, that member of the official staff is entitled to them.
() Persons who are members of the family and form part of the household of such a member of the official staff as is mentioned in paragraph 21 of this Schedule shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities set out in paragraphs 9 and 13 of this Schedule to the like extent as, by virtue of paragraph 21 of this Schedule, that member of the official staff is entitled to them.
§ The noble Lord said: Paragraph 23 of Schedule 1 already provides for immunities and privileges to be conferred, if required by the terms of the relevant international agreement, on members of the families of representatives to international organisations. This Amendment extends the provisions of paragraph 23 to cover the families of members of the official staff of such representatives. Under the relevant international agreements, permanent representatives of Governments to international organisa- 198 tions, such as our noble friend Lord Caradon in New York, and their official staffs are treated like members of a diplomatic mission. By an extension of the same principle, the members of their families may also be treated like members of diplomatic families.
§ At present there are no families entitled to this treatment in the United Kingdom, but the proposed provision may be required in the future to enable us to accord to the families of permanent representatives to international organisations in this country similar treatment to that which the families of our permanent representatives to international organisations in other countries are given. In this special event we should not want to introduce special legislation for this purpose. It is not our intention to take action, but we felt it right to have this provision in the Bill so that we shall not have to come to Parliament for authority to do so if the need arises. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 34, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHOf course we agree to the Amendments which the noble Lord has proposed and which we have adopted. But there is one point which I must raise on the Question, That Schedule 1, as amended, stand part, and that is the social security aspect. The Explanatory Memorandum, when dealing with Schedule 1, states that there will be exemption from social security obligations, and this is expanded in paragraph 13 of the Schedule 1 on page 11. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this means that the National Health Service is available to members of missions in this country, without their having to pay National Insurance stamp contributions. I fully understand why they should have a limited exemption from estate duty, but surely if they are to have the benefit of our National Health Service they should pay for it. I do not know whether the noble Lord will answer me on this point.
I should also like to say in regard to Schedule 1, that I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having written to me 199 in regard to the word "family" in paragraph 23(2), which we discussed on Second Reading. Although, as he said in his reply to me, it may seem a little confusing, it is in my view entirely satisfactory. I see that in his letter to me he states that in the Schedule to the Act of 1950 the term used was "wife or husband and children under the age of 21", and that the reasons for proposing a change are that the 1961 Vienna Convention introduced the concept of members of the family who form part of the household. I gather that this term has not been defined in International Law or in domestic law, but that in our administrative practice—and I accept this—it is regarded as including the spouse and minor children resident with the entitled children, but may also include other persons in special circumstances—for example, a dependent parent or a sister managing the household for an unmarried officer. I fully understand, however, that under our administrative practice each claim to privilege will be considered on its merits, and therefore I am glad to accept the noble Lord's assurance on that point.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI am grateful to the noble Earl, who has accepted the position in regard to families. I confirm that persons who are covered by this Bill and the orders that may be made under it, who are exempt from liability to make contributions under the National Insurance Act, are also exempt from the liability to pay National Health Service contributions. It is true that these persons, particularly the representatives and high officers who are entitled to diplomatic treatment, and the staff of organisations having establishments in the United Kingdom, will be exempt, but will have the facilities provided by our National Health Service. I believe that to make an exception would mean considerable administrative difficulty in dealing with a relatively few people. On the other hand, of course, there are certain countries, in the Commonwealth, in particular, and also in Europe, where they do not have a Health Service like ours but where some kind of reciprocal treatment is provided. As the noble Earl will know, if he is travelling abroad and falls sick there is some reciprocal treatment.
200 I think that at this present moment of time the numbers are so small and the administrative difficulties so out of all proportion that it is right we should still let them receive treatment provided by our National Health Service, but that by this Bill they should be relieved of all liability under the two Acts concerned. This is a matter which could be looked at in the future, but at the moment I understand the administrative difficulties are such that it would be far better to leave it as it is.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHThe only point I wanted to suggest was that the Government of the country concerned might pay these charges.
§ LORD SHEPHERDIt may well be that this could at some time be permitted, but in many cases, of course, as the noble Earl knows, there are arrangements for reciprocal treatment for our people in these countries, as there is for their people in ours. But I will certainly look at it.
§ Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedule agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.