§ 2.53 p.m.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government in how many cases in the last 12 months have allegations of the commission of a criminal offence not been proceeded with by reason of a claim to diplomatic immunity on the part of the alleged offender.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, we have received police reports of 38 serious offences allegedly committed by diplomats since 1st October 1983. "Serious" is defined as applying to any offence in a category where the maximum sentence could in certain circumstances be six months or more imprisonment, although very few of the 38 would in fact have incurred any custodial sentence.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply I should like to ask him whether he can confirm that at any rate most of those 38 offences are offences other than traffic offences. Can he also confirm one's impression that there has been a proliferation in diplomatic staffs in London, in particular from the newer countries?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the present number of diplomatic staff in London enjoying full diplomatic immunity is 4,538. That does not include dependent family members forming a part of the immune person's household. I think that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave further details when he addressed the Foreign Affairs Committee. No, I am mistaken; it was my noble friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Lady Young, when she addressed the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Committee on 30th July last. I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to send him some details of that.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will be good enough to tell us what progress has been made in the review of the Vienna Convention, about which there was a great deal of discussion some weeks ago. Secondly, is it the case that his right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has sent a letter to the heads of missions in London about this matter, and is it the case that he has told them that the rules under the Vienna Convention will be applied more rigorously in future? Can the noble Lord say what is the reaction to that of the heads of missions or, indeed, their governments?
§ Lord TrefgarneYes, my Lords; it is the case that recently the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to heads of missions along the lines that the noble Lord has mentioned. I do not think that we expected any formal response to that communication, except perhaps more scrupulous observance of our laws.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, in order to place before the House some kind of balance on the mutuality, or want of it, in regard to the Vienna Convention, can the noble Lord the Minister give any indication to the House about the number of occasions over the past 10 years on which the United Kindom or its representatives have claimed immunity for our own officials in order to prevent a possible prosecution for criminal offences?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, until recently records were kept only in individual personal files and there was no central record. However, a recent survey of records at overseas posts has revealed that in the last 10 years, as it happens, nine diplomatic service officers escaped prosecution for offences other than minor traffic violations, such as parking offences, by virtue of their immunity.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that there seems to be a lack of balance in these matters?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, that must be self-evident from the answers which I have given. It does, I suppose, indicate what a high standard of behaviour we have come to expect, and get, from our diplomatic officers serving overseas, but it may also be a reflection of the very considerable size of the diplomatic community in London.