HL Deb 15 December 1980 vol 415 cc877-81

3.3 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I beg to move that the Parliamentary Commissioner (Consular Complaints) Bill be now read a second time. The essential purpose of this Bill, in the words of the Long Title, is to: extend the circumstances in which complaints about consular actions can be made under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967". The Bill before your Lordships is a very short one and I do not propose to take up too much of your Lordships' time in lengthy explanation. I should, however, like to trace briefly the background to its introduction. When the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was created in 1967, the actions of British officials overseas were specifically excluded from the Commissioner's scrutiny under Schedule 3(2) to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act of that year. Complaints by British citizens resident overseas were also, for the most part, excluded under Section 6(4) of the Act.

In their Fourth Report for the 1977–78 Session, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of another place recorded the conclusions of its review of methods of access to, and the jurisdiction of, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. One of the committee's conclusions was that: the Commissioner should be able to investigate complaints by British citizens about assistance requested from Consular offices and overseas posts, including complaints by British citizens resident abroad". The previous Government accepted the first part of this recommendation and the Parliamentary Commissioner Order 1979 (Number 915) brought within the Commissioner's jurisdiction: action which is taken [in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom] by an officer (not being an honorary consular officer) in the exercise of a consular function on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom and which is so taken in relation to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom". Until the Government's nationality proposals have been enacted into law, the term "British citizen" will be imprecise as a legal term, and so it was necessary to spell out in the Parliamentary Commissioner Order 1979 what was intended. Similar considerations apply in the case of the present Bill.

The purpose of this Bill, then, is to give effect to the second part of the Select Committee's recommendation by extending the Commissioner's jurisdiction to enable British citizens (that is, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with the right of abode in the United Kingdom) who are resident overseas to make complaints about the quality of the assistance they receive from consular officials overseas. Clause I, the only operative clause of the Bill, accordingly amends Section 6(4) of the 1967 Act so as to permit complaints to be made about consular actions overseas where the aggrieved person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and has the right of abode in the United Kingdom. My Lords, I believe that the proposals in this Bill will enjoy a wide measure of support both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

3.8 p.m.

Lord Goronwy-Roberts

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this Bill with such clarity and conciseness. I shall confine myself to two or three practical points which I hope the noble Lord may be able to answer today or perhaps he will impart the information to the House in his own way later. Welcome as this is as an extension of the powers and work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, surely this will add to the work of his office. We are all aware of the great increase in the number of British citizens who have taken up residence for varying periods—some of them pretty well permanently—for business and professional purposes, in other countries, in particular since the war, and of the very great increase in the number of British citizens who qualify under this Bill—and I shall not go into the definition for the moment—who for holiday, study or business reasons spend varying portions of the year in various overseas countries. The number is increasing all the time. Therefore, the potential demand on the work of the public administrator is likely to increase.

For that reason, do the Government perhaps underestimate the additional resources in man and woman power and in money which this extension will make necessary? Perhaps they are right in what they say in the financial section of the Explanatory Memorandum. I simply raise the point in view of what has been happening since the war. For the same reasons I should like to put this point. Will not the demands on the consular service greatly increase? It is not that more recourse will be made to our consular officials for help, advice and, indeed, help in extremity—that is the situation already; it is that the number of grievances as to how they have handled such requests for help will greatly increase under these provisions. This may be right. Indeed, the Administration of which I was a part felt that it ought to be done, and I do not oppose the provision except to put in a word for our consular personnel who, in many countries, are already pretty well stretched, certainly at certain times of the year, in meeting the demands upon them of visitors from this country who have got into difficulties.

Thirdly, the Title of the Bill is Parliamentary Commissioner (Consular Complaints) Bill. Does that mean that the Government officials to whom British citizens of whatever definition may have recourse in other countries, are simply the consular personnel? Does that in fact mean that this Bill does not cover questions of seeking aid from attachés, including trade attachés as well as others, and that it is only the consular personnel who are covered by this? Of course, our posts include other officials who constantly deal with the public over a wide range of requests for help. Perhaps the noble Lord might clarify that point.

Finally, can the Minister confirm that an aggrieved citizen—that is, one who has sought the aid of our consular services and who, rightly or wrongly, is aggrieved by the way in which the matter has been handled—may bring his case to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration through a Member of this House? I think it should be made clear in regard to the present extension and retrospectively in regard to the general provision for a Parliamentary Commissioner that "Member of Parliament" for this purpose means a Member of the other place. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to help us today, or at any time subject to his convenience.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, may I ask a question? I am sure that everyone would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and will welcome this, but I feel constrained to ask whether it will be any good. I wonder whether the Government are concerned at how little attention is paid to the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner. It takes a little time to get a case to the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Parliamentary Commissioner takes a little time to examine it.

I can only judge by one or two cases. I am not going to give any examples today, but the response of the Government to the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner has been extremely unspectacular. They have taken practically no notice of them whatsoever. I draw attention to this. It may be a little out of the terms of this Bill, but, unless the Government are a little more lively in noticing what the Parliamentary Commissioner says, this particular Bill will have extremely limited importance or effect.

3.12 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his helpful reception of this Bill. I shall try to deal with as many of the points that he raised as I can. If I miss one, perhaps he will remind me, and I shall endeavour to deal with it in correspondence subsequently. The noble Lord asked whether the passage of this Bill would result in an increased workload on the office of the Ombudsman, as he is called. We do not think that that is necessarily the case. Of the 5,000 or so consular cases which are handled every year only 100 ever give rise to a complaint. How many of those complaints would eventually find their way to the Ombudsman I could not say, but I do not think it will be very many and we do not anticipate a substantical increase in the workload of the PCA following the passage of this Bill.

I understand that "consular officials" would include, if necessary, the work of commercial or other attachés working in embassies, so that an exporter, for example, who felt that his task had not been adequately facilitated by a trade attaché overseas could endeavour to have that matter brought before the Ombudsman. I can confirm that access to the Ombudsman is confined to Members of the other place and is not in fact possible through Members of your Lordships' House.

As for the point put to me by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I can assure him that, in the ranks of the Civil Service at least, the reports of the Ombudsman are taken very seriously indeed. I will not say that they quake in their shoes at the thought of an adverse report from the Ombudsman, but they are certainly conscious of the publicity that might flow from a critical report from his office. I do not think it is fair to say that the reports are disregarded at every level, as my noble friend implied. If there is anything I have missed from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, I shall with pleasure look at the point and write to the noble Lord.

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, may I ask one question? The noble Lord referred to the trade attaché within an embassy. The trade attaché, if my memory is right, is responsible to the ambassador. Am I to take it therefore that if, under this Bill, there is to be recourse to the Parliamentary Commissioner in regard to a trade attaché, it therefore follows that an ambassador may also be held accountable for the performance of staff within his embassy or his High Commission?

My understanding of consular work is that it is rather different from the work of an ambassador. I have a little sense of unease arising from what the noble Lord said. This is something he ought perhaps to seek to clarify and let us know about at a later stage. My understanding is that consular work within an embassy is very different from what one might call work of a political nature within an embassy. A trade attaché's job is also political. Therefore, I think that this is a matter that ought to be looked at.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I agree that this is a very arcane matter. I shall gladly look into the matter again, and if I have in any way misled the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, or your Lordships, I shall hasten to put the matter right, but I do not think that I have.

Lord Goronwy-Roberts

My Lords, there is no question of the noble Lord having misled anybody. It is that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who, like me, has some experience of these matters in the Foreign Office is anxious, as we all are, to get the question of definitions and therefore of functions clear. Business, education, professions, private families, all need to know this. I quote from a useful document, which I think emanates from the Foreign Office. It describes the Bill as being the Parliamentary Commissioner (Consular Complaints) Bill and goes on to say: When the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was created in 1967"— which my noble friend and I distinctly remember— the actions of British officials overseas were specifically excluded from the Commissioner's scrutiny under Schedule 3,2". What the noble Lord and I and, I think, the entire House in an entirely non-partisan way would like to ascertain, not necessarily today, is whether the words "British officials overseas"—which cover everybody in any kind of authority, or to whom recourse may be made by British citizens in other countries—are covered by this rather than what most of us take to be the fairly restricted and narrow category described as "consular officials". We leave it at that. I think that the noble Lord would wish, in his accustomed meticulous manner, to get this information and perhaps in a Written Answer or in some other way make it absolutely clear to the House what is meant.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I certainly undertake to do that.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.