§ Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the letter dated 5 December 1986 from the Minister of State the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) to the hon. Member for Leicester, East regarding waivers of diplomatic immunity.
§ Mr. EggarI assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the letter of 5 February, the text of which is as follows
In Tim Eggar's Answer to your Parliamentary Question of 22 January he undertook to let you have further information about occasions when a foreign Government has refused to waive the immunity of diplomats alleged to have committed serious offences. I am writing in Tim's absence overseas.Your question was confined to alleged serious offences carrying a minimum prison sentence of 3 years. In fact I understand that the various Acts covering criminal offences provide only for maximum sentences, not minimum ones. Over the past five years, therefore, taking your Question to refer to waivers requested and refused for offences which could attract a penalty of at least three years, there have been eleven such cases since the beginning of 1982. We have requested waivers in connection with alleged offences of shoplifting and theft (7 cases), indecent assault (1), grievous bodily harm (1), assault occasioning actual bodily harm (1) and criminal damage (1). Each of these carries a maximum penalty of more than three years, though of course many sentences would be for shorter periods than this. Gross indecency towards a child under 14 of either sex carries a maximum penalty of only two years; the American case which has recently received so much publicity does not therefore fall into the category covered by your Question. Nor do drunken driving offences, which carry a maximum sentence of six months (plus a fine and mandatory disqualification).I hope this provides you with sufficient information. As you know, Tim would be happy to chat with you about our policy in this area if this would be of assistance.