I beg to move, in page 2, line To, to leave out from "on," to "or," in line and to insert:

" any organisation of the United Nations."

I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were taken together with others on page 2780 and 2781, which deal with the First Schedule.

I am sure that meets with the approval of the Committee. All those other Amendments are consequential on this Amendment.

The object of this Amendment is simple. It seeks to limit the extension of privileges and immunities under this Bill, to the organisations of the United Nations. As the Bill stands, it follows Section 1 of the 1944 Act, by which privileges and immunities can be extended to any organisation to which His Majesty's Government and any other Government may be parties. Under that Act and in the Bill as it stands, these additional immunities and privileges could be extended to quite a number of organisations to which His Majesty's Government and any other Government might be parties, quite outside the scope of the United Nations. They could apply, as I understand it and for the sake of argument, to the Danube Commission. U.N.R.R.A. could be granted Press rates, and that might lead to a number of extremely undesirable practices. There is no reason why U.N.R.R.A. should spend much money on what might possibly be very wide publicity which they could perfectly well do it at Press rates, under the Bill as it stands at present. We regard that possibility as highly undesirable. I do not see why the privileges should extend to the European Coal Organisation, to take another example. The object of the Amendment is to bring the Bill back to the Convention and to restrict it to organisations that are within, and not outside, the scope of the United Nations.

I do not know whether the Minister proposes to answer our arguments on the Amendment. I hope he does. It is an Amendment of some substance. I do not want to repeat all that has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend in moving it, but I want to make it clear that we attach some importance to the Amendment. Under the Act of 1944 privileges could be conferred by Order in Council on any organisation in which His Majesty's Government, or any other Government, were partners. I think that is an accurate statement of the position under that Act. From 1944 till now, organisations like U.N.R.R.A. which have been in existence have not, as far as I am aware, complained of any lack of adequate privilege for carrying out their tasks. In the Bill of 1946 we find a specific recommendation from the Convention, recited from the Preamble, as to the additional privileges which it is considered desirable that the United Nations organisation and its branches should have. I do not think that the discussion would have lasted the time it has, and as it is likely to last if the Bill presented by the right hon. Gentleman had been as well drawn, and well considered and thought out, as was that Convention.

We seek to limit the extension of the privileges to be given to the organisations to what is asked in the Convention. We say that the extension of privilege to the organisations shall be limited to organisations for which such extension is recommended in the Convention. In introducing the Bill the right hon. Gentleman said that it went a little beyond the Convention. I must congratulate him on having got away with a singular understatement. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to resist the Amendment, he must justify other organisations which are not part of U.N.O. getting, or being given, additional privileges. He must make out a case. No case has yet been made out for it. All that the right hon. Gentleman said during the Second Reading, when he opened the discussion, was one sentence, which is reported as follows:

" The privileges which have been granted in the past must be made the same as those which are now being given to the United Nations."—[OFFiciAL REPORT, 21st June, 1946; Vol. 424. c. 644.]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Why must the privileges which U.N.R.R.A. has possessed in the past now be extended? Is there any demand by U.N.R.R.A. for those privileges? I hope that he will answer those questions and that he will indicate from whence the demand came for the extension of the privileges to organisations which arc in no way related to the United Nations organisation.

I would invite the Committee to consider what the extra privileges are which may be conferred by the Bill upon any organisation in which this Government and any other Government are partners. They are set out in heavy type on page 5 of the Bill. If the Bill is passed into law, all those organisations, if they succeed in obtaining an Order in Council, can get

" exemption from taxes on the importation of goods directly imported by the organisation for its own official use."

That provision was in the 1944 Act. This is new:

" Or on the importation of any publications of the organisation directly imported by it."

There may be a case—and I am not discussing whether there is or not—for the United Nations organisation to have that power. I cannot challenge it and it is not in issue. I am asking for the case of the other organisations having power directly to import, exempted and free from taxes, any of their publications. What is the case, for instance, for the European Coal Organisation having such rights? I want to know. Before we give such extensive powers to the Government we ought to be told.

One knows that very often international organisations may like to justify, and indeed to advertise, their record and their conduct. I recently received a publication from U.N.R.R.A. of its work with regard to displaced persons. It was very interesting, but is it really part of the function of this international organisation that money subscribed for feeding people in Europe, for instance, should be used in propaganda work in this country? I do not know, but the point is that the right hon. Gentleman must justify the grant of such an extension, which is not limited to publications for its own official use, and the grant of such an extension of privilege to all organisations.

If one looks at the new paragraph 5 in the First Schedule to the Bill one reads:

"Exemption from prohibitions and restrictions on importation or exportation in the case of goods directly imported or exported by the organisation for its official use and in the case of any publications of the organisation directly imported or exported by it."

That is asked for in the Convention for Our Amendment does not quarrel with that provision at all. Where is the case for putting it into the Bill for all the other organisations? The same applies, as my hon. and gallant Friend indicated, to the right to avail themselves of telegraphic communication at Press rates, and to broadcasting. What is the case for that? On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman cannot just say, "It is demanded in the Convention." Our Amendment gives all that is asked for by the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman must go on and seek to justify the granting of all these exceptional and additional powers, and of each one of them.

With your permission, Major Milner, we understand that we are now being permitted to discuss not only the Amendment which we have moved to Clause I, but also consequential Amendments to the Schedules. If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to accept these Amendments which do not affect the substance of the Bill or the Convention, but are important in limiting the privilege to certain spheres, he ought to justify each one of these extensions. That is why there is a separate Amendment on the Order Paper with regard to each. He may be able to satisfy us, for instance, that there is a case for the admission of publications of these organisations free of tax and without restrictions or prohibitions. But then there still remains the question, Ought they to have these Press rates? What will be the effect of those, and for what purpose are they required? For instance, does the European Coal Organisation really require to indulge in much publicity? If it does not, why give it this facility? What is the object? With those observations, in which I hope I have made the case clear to the right hon. Gentleman, I hope he will now condescend to give us an answer in detail.

I would like to assure the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that, of course, I regard this as an important Amendment and, indeed, the most important Amendment which hon. Members opposite have put down on the Order Paper. I thought it might be convenient if he said what he wanted to say before I answered. Of course, I am glad to speak on any of the Amendments at any moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why there was any demand for the provisions of this Bill enabling us to cover other organisations besides those which he calls the organisations of the United Nations—an ambiguous phrase about which I shall say a word in a moment.

I used that phrase to cover the compendious phrase which appears, I think, in the Bill:

" The General Assembly or any council or other organ of the United Nations."

I used the phrase to cover all those things.

I will argue in a moment what is meant by "other organs of the United Nations." I am not sure that we would be in agreement about it. In any case, we shall see when we get there. The demand was made in the Assembly, where 51 governments drew up the Convention, and that is the resolution about the unification of the immunities granted to other organisations. In that resolution it was made quite plain that while no organisation ought to have more immunities than were required, and while none ought to have more than are allowed in the Convention—that is the maximum—nevertheless, it was desirable that, so far as possible, the immunities of the different organisations should be the same. That is why we want to deal with the matter in the same Bill and in the same way, as far as possible.

What is meant by "an organ of the United Nations"? Of course, it applies to the Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council. It applies to the Secretariat in so far as the Convention grants immunities to the officials, and, of course, to representatives of Governments in all those bodies. Does it apply to organs set up by those main organs, such as the Atomic Energy Commission? I think it plainly ought to. Does it apply to the Health Organisation on which a conference is now sitting in New York? That Health Organisation may be set up in either of two ways. It may be decided, in order to save time and for other reasons, to set it up by a resolution of the Assembly, which it is hoped will meet in the autumn of this year. Is that an organ of the United Nations? I think it plainly would be so. But supposing it was set up by a convention, would it then be an organ of the United Nations? Is the International Court of Justice an organ of the United Nations? We shall argue about it on another Amendment in a few moments and I do not wish to deal with it now. The International Labour Office now has an agreement with the Economic and Social Council, which it is hoped will be ratified by the Assembly and at the conference of the I.L.O. this autumn. This is an agreement establishing a close relation in many ways. It envisages that in due course they may have a common budget. Is that an organ of the United Nations? It the Food and Agricultural Organisation such an organ?

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to read the relevant words in the constitution of that body:

" The organisation shall have the capacity of a legal person. Each member undertakes, in so far as may be possible under its constitutional procedure, to accord to the Organisation all the immunities and facilities which it accords to diplomatic missions, including inviolability of premises and archives, immunity from suit and exemptions from taxation."

I would also like to refer to Article 12 in the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, shortly known as U.N.E.S.C.O., which says that "the provisions of Articles 104 and 105 of the Charter of the United Nations—on which of course, this Bill, like the Convention, is founded—concerning the legal status of that Organisation, its privileges and immunities shall apply in the same way to this Organisation." U.N.E.S.C.O. was set up in a separate Convention in the way in which I said it was possible that the Health Organisation might be set tip this autumn. It seems to me to be quite plain that these organisations of which I have spoken ought to have the same immunities as the United Nations itself.

Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to this point? I understand that there is no limit to the number of organisations which the United Nations might set up. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has already devoted two or three minutes to describing those already set up. Are we to understand that if His Majesty's Government, as a member of the organisation, strongly object to the setting up of some other organisation, and are overruled, nevertheless the immunities which we seek to remove will be extended to them? Is that the Government's policy?

It is possible that such a case might arise. If the organisation had been set up by a Convention, and we chose not to sign it, I think it would not receive the immunities in this country which it would receive in the countries who signed it.

Surely we ought to know. We ought to have a Law Officer present to answer the point. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks so. It is an important point. Will it be so or not?

Of course, it will he so. If we do not sign the Convention which sets up one of these organisations, we shall not be bound by anything in connection with it. In point of fact, I hope we shall always sign these Conventions, because if there is a strong demaid for the creation of such an international organisation it will be because there is an important function for it to fulfil. I hope His Majesty's Government will always be in the lead in developing this kind of work, because we are convinced that it is on the development of this kind of international organisation that the future peace of the world will depend. We have got to build up these organisations so that they will be able to solve the problems which in the past have led to misunderstanding and to wars.

Now I come to the particular questions which I was asked about the Danube Commission, U.N.R.R.A. and the European Coal Organisation. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry said that these organisations were quite unrelated to the United Nations; I think the phrase he used was "in no way related."

I do not think I said that they were in no way related. I was trying to indicate that under this Bill and under the Act of 1944, organisations which are in no way related to the United Nations may still get privileges under this Measure. That is the point.

I quite agree. In point of fact, I hope there will not be many such organisations. I think it is extremely undesirable that we should continue the practice of the past, namely, setting up international bureaux of some kind, entirely unrelated to anything else, working by themselves in a vacuum, stuck away in some remote capital. If we are to make a reality of all this work with which these organisations are to deal, I am convinced the whole lot of them must be integrated into a single international system bound together as closely as possible. Take, for example, the Danube Commission, or the European Coal Organisation. Of course, in the past, the Danube Commission has not been related to any superior or other international organisation. It has been independent, working on its own. Even on that basis, I would be in favour of giving it these immunities, and I will explain why. But, in fact, I hope that in the future we shall develop a world transport organisation. It has been agreed in principle that the Economic and Social Council is to do that; it was settled at the recent meeting in New York a month ago. It is agreed there ought to be a European regional Transport Organisation. I hope very much that a body like the Danube Commission would come under the European regional Transport Organisation, and would be an integral part of the whole system.

In that way, I think, quite plainly, it would in a real sense become a United Nations organisation, and on that ground ought to have the immunities. But it ought to anyway, and I think the same about the European Coal Organisation. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because they are performing important functions in the interests of the community of nations; and because their agents, in order to perform those functions, must be able to act independently of the Governments of the regions where they are situated, or of any Governments in territories where it is essential for them to travel. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest they ought not to be as free from the pressure of single national Governments as a diplomat in this country is free from the pressure of our Government.

The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point entirely, because all these organisations could get privileges under the 1944 Act. We are now only concerned with the additional privileges which can be conferred on organisations under this Bill. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman: Why is it necessary that the Danube Commission should now be given, the right of sending messages at Press rates? That is one of the extensions that applies also with regard to broadcasting, in the extension of privileges set out in Paragraph 6 of Part I of the Schedule. Let us get down to what is actually being extended here. That is why I asked the right hon. Gentleman, whatever he may say about the Danube Commission: Why should international organisations, which are in no way related to the United Nations, have these rights of sending out matter intended for publication by the Press or for broadcasting at Press rates?

I take it the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts the principle which I endeavoured to enunciate, that agents of these organisations, in the fulfilment of their very important international tasks, carried out on behalf of the international community at large, ought to be as free from the pressure of any single national Government as a diplomat representing his country in another country?

I am not going to enter into a debate with the right hon. Gentleman on a question which does not arise on this Amendment at all.

This is the whole point. If I am asked now, "Why particularly Press rates, or immunities for the import and export of publications?" I say, firstly, it is because we think it better in the general interest that all nations should allow Press rates. It reduces pro tanto the budgets of these organisations. It will save the British taxpayer money, as well as other taxpayers if they have to contribute. Much more important, we think it of the highest necessity that all these organisations should be able, if desirable, to ensure wide distribution of their publications in all countries. The hon and gallant Gentleman the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) talked about propaganda by U.N.R.R.A. There has been a great deal of propaganda against U.N.R.R.A., sometimes by interested sources. I think it extremely important that U.N.R.R.A. should be able to make the true facts known, and should not be held up by import restrictions and Customs duties which might be made prohibitive, or in some way, in effect, prevented from making the true facts known. I cannot think that anybody who knows the history of past international crises will deny that it is all important that such information should be disseminated as widely as possible.

The European Coal Organisation has been mentioned. Why not? The European Coal Organisation is rendering vital service to Europe now. By its work we were able to get some coal for Italy in the month of July, when otherwise Italy might have been brought almost to a standstill just before her elections, because she would have had no coal for her trains or for other essential needs. The work of the European Coal Organisation is sometimes very seriously misrepresented. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman doubt that there are vested interests in this matter of coal, or that a number of nations arc ardent claimants for restricted quantities? Of course it is desirable the Organisation should have these rights. I would say, summing up what I have tried to make plain to the Committee, that we think most, if not all, international institutions ought in due course to become, in a real sense, United Nations institutions; that in any case, they ought, so far as possible, to have the same kind of immunities, always subject to the condition laid down—this might for example, sometimes exclude broadcasting —that they shall not have more than they require; and finally, we want them to have these rights and privileges because we want the organisations to succeed.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. As I understand it, the gist of his remarks has been that any large-scale international organisation which is doing useful work, from the international point of view, is to be entitled to these privileges, whether it is connected with the United Nations organisation or not. He has been speaking as a European. Let us take it that there is sonic international convention or international organisation set up on the River Plate, for the benefit of the riparian nations in South America. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that that organisation should have these privileges? Let us go further; let us suppose an organisation is set up to deal with the affairs of a river which has only two or three riparian countries. That becomes an international organisation, because any organisation governed by three countries must be an international organisation. Is that to have similar privileges? Let us take another case. There used to be—although I do not think it exists still—a strange little bit of international machinery which governed a lighthouse near Tangier. If one of those commissions happened to reside in Mayfair, would it have the same privileges? I mention these cases in order to show the right hon. Gentleman that his argument can be shown to go far beyond what I am sure he would wish it to go. I would like him in particular to address his mind to the question of my hypothetical River Plate commission. I really think this is the sort of way in which this matter should be approached.

We have become accustomed to national organisations which are organised upon a political basis and which have become known as nations. Privileges have been granted by custom to the emissaries of those organisations. Now, the world is realising the importance of other forms of organisation, international as against national, and very often economic in their functions as against political. We believe, and indeed hope, that those international economic organisations are as important as, and very often more important than, the political national organisations, and we believe and hope that they may have as great privileges and immunities in the international comity as arc granted to the representatives of the other types of organisation. We do not wish to give any advantage to the old, more ancient type as against the newer type.

The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) referred to the possibility of an organisation of the River Plate. By the River Plate there are political national organisations which are granted the ancient diplomatic immunities. If it had been said in the Parliaments of George III, "Do you really suggest that we should grant the same sort of diplomatic immunities as we grant to the emissaries of France to some peculiar political organisation which takes place in the jungles of Southern America?" it would have appeared absurd. But the world is developing, and I believe that these international economic organisations are the very stuff of the future, and that it behoves us to give them every advantage in their development which we grant to the older type of political national organisation which we term a nation.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State that the specialised agencies and other organisations of the United Nations should not be in a position in which they are subject to national pressure, but the object of this Amendment is to restrict the extension of the privileges conferred by this Bill to the organisations of the United Nations. The reason is that the terms of the privileges to other organisations have not been decided upon by the United Nations. There are two problems. One is to extend privileges to the organisations of the United Nations, which is quite a proper subject for this Bill. The other problem, which will come later, will be to unify the privileges of the organisations which are not United Nations organisations. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as a general principle, all the privileges of those other organisations should be on a par. When he mentioned it the second time, he added the qualification, "as far as necessary." But on both occasions he said that the privileges should be the same. The objection to this provision in the Bill is that it anticipates negotiations and discussions with other members of the United Nations. The General Assembly does not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that all these organisations should have equal privileges. It says:

" While recognising that not all specialised agencies require all the privileges and immunities which may be needed by others—

which is exactly the opposite——

That is what I read out.

If the right hon. Gentleman read out something which was the opposite of what he said, I cannot help it. Later, the Convention says:

" The General Assembly considers that the privileges and immunities of the United Nations should be regarded, as a general rule, as a maximum within which the various specialised agencies should enjoy such privileges and immunities as the appropriate fulfilment of their respective functions may require, and that no privileges and immunities which are not really necessary should be asked for. Therefore, the General Assembly instructs the Secretary-General to open negotiations with a view to the reconsideration in the light both of the General Convention adopted by the United Nations and of the considerations above, of the provisions under which the specialised agencies at present enjoy privileges and immunities."

What this Bill is trying to do is to anticipate that reconsideration and to anticipate the general discussion. In my submission, the object of the Amendment, namely, to restrict the Bill to what the United Nations have so far decided, is the right one. Later on, there should come another Bill to unify the privileges of the other organisations. It is wrong, when the General Assembly may well cut down the privileges and immunities of the specialised organisations, to apply those privileges to organisations other than those of the United Nations. The quotation I have read said that the other agencies might need them, and that the privileges of those other organisations ought to be reconsidered in the light of the General Convention. This provision of the Bill does exactly the opposite. The right hon. Gentleman said that it extends the privileges which are granted to the United Nations to other specialised organisations. For that reason, I support the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that international organisations were the stuff of the future. If he thinks that, he will find it in our Amendment. What hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not realise is how internationalist we are being in this Amendment. The Bill, as it stands, and the 1944 Act, specifies the immunities and privileges which may be conferred on any organisation in which this or any other Government are partners. Hon. Members opposite are not particularly in favour of regional organisations. They would like to have a world society with all the functional organisations organised underneath it. They would look with disfavour upon an organisation promoted by His Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government to sell sherry in this country or in any other part of the world; but under the Bill as it stands, the officials of such an organisation would have diplomatic immunity. What we are trying to do is to take a leap past the local regional organisations and to provide an organisation under the United Nations. I cannot see how hon. Members opposite can have any objection to the Amendment. For that reason, I hope the Minister of State will look at it again in order to see whether he cannot accept it.

Will the noble Lord elucidate further his statement that people selling sherry in this country could have diplomatic immunity?

If an organisation is set up by His Majesty's Government and another Government to sell anything or do anything, the officials of that organisation have privileges and immunities under the 1944 Act and under this Bill, which makes no change. All we say is that it should be an international organisation under the United Nations which has the immunities.

We have seen many changes in this House since the General Election, but this is one of the most amazing. The defenders of privilege are now opposing it. Of course, we can understand that. As long as privilege was retained by and limited to their own circle, privilege was all right; but now when new people are being brought in and their own monopoly of privilege is threatened, then, of course, they begin to make their protest. But, as one who is opposed to all privilege—I do not consider there should be any privileges for anybody, no matter what position he occupies, diplomatic or otherwise —I would draw attention to the fact that diplomatic privileges were granted first when every diplomat, wherever he went to or came from, was a hall-marked Tory aristocrat.

Has the hon. Member no privileges as a Member of this House?

I do not know. Maybe, I have. I have not used any privileges as a Member of this House. But we here are considering privileges to enable men to do work. That is an abhorrent idea to hon. Members opposite—the idea of work and of privileges to do work. What they believe in is privilege providing for a sort of sanctified Tussaudian exhibit with the same relation to ordinary people as medicine men have to the natives of the jungle. A former Secretary of State, Thomas Johnston, when he was editor of "Forward", writing at the time of the 1924 Government, mentioned a junior Minister, who met an exalted personage and reporting afterwards said, "He came towards me and shook my hand like an ordinary human being." I say that the more organisations we bring in here, themerrier——

jobs for the boys at £4,000 a year.

We are not after jobs. It is the hon. Members opposite who have always been the job-hunters, but I certainly would like one privilege—that of being freed from the pursuit of the police. That would be a very good thing. We have an United Nations Association, an organisation for popularising the United Nations organisation. I do not know whether that would be connected with the United Nations organisation or not, but if the Minister would favour the idea of the United Nations Association being connected with the United Nations organisation, then we could all join the association and the organisation.

And all get jobs.

No, but we could all enjoy the privileges. While I do not like privileges, I say that an organisation such as the Danubian Commission, or some commission down on the River Plate, or wherever else it may be, or even an organisation for selling sherry, is an organisation doing something useful, which hon. Members on the other side have never done. So, although I do not like privileges, I say that when these privileges are directed towards enabling men to carry out tasks which are of great importance not only to the future peace of this country but the future of the world, we had better grant them, and that there should be no hesitation in rejecting this Amendment, and so supporting the Minister.

It is not clear from the countenance of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State whether he regards the last intervention as helpful or not.

Very helpful.

For my part, I have no desire to be deprived of the privilege of listening to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who, invariably, introduces a lighter note into our proceedings, which is a relief when we are discussing some technical Bill. I rise to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman, thus adding to the list, which is now growing. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) put to him a hypothetical case of an imaginary commission in Buenos Aires dealing with Latin America. I desire to put to him a case which is not hypothetical at all, but concrete example, in the hope that we may extract a little more information on what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I listened with great care to what he said. There was one expansive sentence in which he appeared to embrace the whole of mankind, as he likes to do, and in which he said that any one who is performing an international function should be brought, if possible, within the ambit of U.N.O., or that anyone performing work of such international importance should have the privileges outlined in this Bill. That is what I understood him to say, and I think it is what he had in mind. There was recently appointed an Anglo-American Committee in reference to Palestine. The Committee spent some time in that country, and has reported, and its report is still under consideration by His Majesty's Government, who seem to have even more difficulty in making up their mind in this matter than in others. What would be the position of the Anglo-American Committee in Palestine? Surely, it was an international function that they fulfilled. I am making no criticism of the Danubian Commission or of the Coal Organisation, or of anything of that sort. The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to those organisations. I am sure he would also pay tribute to the members of the Committee on Palestine. They surely come within the same definition of a body engaged in a task of international importance, one which, it is hoped, will help to solve an extremely thorny problem in the Middle East. Will the members of the Anglo-American Committee be regarded as envoys within the meaning of this Bill?

Just a moment. If so, it will bring comfort to the soul of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Butler), because he would have been immune from many things, including taxation on his Parliamentary salary during that time. Other commissions of this sort may be sent to various areas where there are troubles and thorny problems. They may consist of representatives of this House, and, perhaps, of another place. Who knows? Are they to be treated on the level of diplomatic envoys in this matter? I think that is a point the right hon. Gentleman might clear up.

I think that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has overlooked is the word "organisation." "Organisation" means a corporate existence. The Palestine Committee was composed of individuals appointed by countries to do a job. It did not have a corporate existence. This provision will apply only to an organisation having a corporate existence. It is a legal point.

My question was addressed to the Minister of State, who is probably better informed. It might cause sorrow to my hon. Friend to be told that he had no corporate existence. I think he had. I believe that a commission of that sort has a corporate existence, as has the Danubian Commission or the Coal Organisation. But it is a matter for the Minister of State.

There is no common seal. or any thing of that sort.

I am asking the Minister of State. Perhaps, he will be good enough to answer.

The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) informed the House that the question of diplomatic privilege was the child of the Tory aristocracy, and was created only for their enjoyment. I am sure it will give considerable surprise to the Russian Ambassador to learn that he is a Tory diplomat, because he enjoys these diplomatic privileges.

I said that when diplomatic privileges were introduced, every diplomat who went from here or came here was a Tory aristocrat.

Nonsense.

I am not going to pursue the hon. Member into the realm of history. I do not know whether the ambassadors from revolutionary France were also aristocrats. The hon. Member pursued his argument by saying that these people should be given privileges in order to work. I should have thought that to relieve them of rates and taxation was not an inducement to work, but that it would make life much easier for them. I wish to bring this issue back to its proper perspective. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) developed a masterly evasion of the real issue. They endevoured to develop the argument that we must have these various types of international organisations, because the old national relationships had changed into international relationships. That may or may not be so, but it is not the point. We are not asking whether these organisations should be set up—there was a good deal of sloppy Left Wing stuff about setting up these organisations—but whether, when they are set up, they should have these privileges. That is the point which has been evaded.

As I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I confess that I grew increasingly bewildered—almost in proportion to what appeared to be his increasing bewilderment. To begin with, all was plain sailing. He made two points: one was a protest against the inclusion of organisations outside U.N.O. among those qualifying for privilege, and the other was a protest against the addition of particular privileges specified in the Schedule. But when the Minister got up and proceeded to answer the first point, the hon. and learned Member leapt to his feet and said that he did not want to enter into a debate—in which case I do not quite know what he is doing here—and begged the Minister in effect to stop answering that point and to address himself to the other point about the addition of privileges. In the course of his speech he protested of course that it was unreasonable that such organisations as U.N.R.R.A. should have facilities for disseminating precisely those facts and figures for which hon. Members opposite are persistently clamouring. When they get them, it is called propaganda. But the point was fairly returned to by the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) when he asked whether it was legitimate to include organisations outside the present scope of U.N.O. But I suggest he was excellently answered by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) who pointed out that in the Convention the language was permissive. That is the answer; it is permissive, and this Clause is permissive. There is no reason why any of the organisations such as those which have been cited should be granted immunities by the Government, but on the other hand the Bill allows the Government to keep in step with any future decisions which may be taken by the Assembly.

We have had two enthusiasts in this Debate who have gone slightly beyond the Amendment, which is comparatively narrow in scope. We have had the Leader of the Communist Party, who is well known to be an enthusiast for the maximum possible number of posts under international organisation, and I noticed the enthusiastic cheers from hon. Members above the Gangway, and especially from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), when he sug- gested that in future there would be even more opportunities for appointments to international posts. Then we had the right hon. Gentleman, who delivered one of his most eloquent speeches, which almost take the form of lectures, on his intense belief in the United Nations. This is not a question of discussing the case for or against U.N.O., because that does not arise on this Amendment. Looking back over my long period of Parliamentary history, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman's speech., was the kind of speech which we heard in 1918 when we were told that all was going to be safe.

As I say, we are not discussing here the organisation of U.N.O. All we are asking in this Amendment is why the Government have included organisations which do not come under U.N.O., with the prospect of there being an indefinite number of them, if there is such an extension. Surely the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was a very dangerous one from his own point of view? He said it was true that this Clause would affect all these organisations which are no, at present in U.N.O., but that he hoped they would come into U.N.O. What happens if they do not come into U.N.O., and what right has the right hon. Gentleman to instruct or suggest to U.N.O. that they should include these organisations? We live in a curious world, and at the risk of shouts of indignation from opposite, I would point out that there seems to be a slight lack of amity in international relations at this moment. What is there to prevent a nation setting up a number of international organisations not recognised by U.N.O., and then appealing to the Government to give them privileges. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a permissive power, but such an approach will be very embarrassing for him. Supposing South American countries proceed to set up such bodies, what then? That is the point, and eulogistic references to U.N.O. and what they are doing do not enter into it. I hope we shall be told why there is this unnecessary extension in this Clause to which we take exception.

As one who has spent some time studying the subject of international law, and has seen the lukewarm support which it received during the last 20 years from those now occupying the benches opposite, I should like to say a few words. It seems to me that in the first place this is a permissive Clause. This Bill gives no privileges whatsoever to sherry parties between Portugal and this country. This Bill is subject to the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act of 1944. Under that Act no organisation can be given, and none of its members can be given, any of these privileges unless an Order in Council is made, and the procedure which follows inevitably brings the matter before the House. This House retains control not only over the organisation, but over the Minister, who has suggested that the organisation should have these privileges. Is it not going to the limit of the ridiculous to suggest that any responsible Foreign Secretary or Minister of State would come to this House and suggest that, if Great Britain, Portugal, Uruguay and Guatemala propose to set up art organisation to distribute sherry, for the profits of those Governments, this House should give the members of that organisation any privilege, such as is envisaged in this Bill? The whole argument is, in my submission, unworthy of hon. Members who purport to be legislators, and, as such, purport to study the law to some degree.

I am not concerned with the inclusion or exclusion of any particular class of organisation, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has developed an extremely interesting conception of the proper method of legislation by Parliament. Does he really consider that the objections have been sufficiently answered by saying that this is permissive to His Majesty's Government? Does he think that the proper method of legislation—and there are many indications that hon. Members opposite do —is to give a series of blank cheques, accompanied by pious hopes?

I welcome the intervention of the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). This Bill defines the privileges that can be given, and defines them very specifically. So does the Act upon which the Bill is based We know what power we are giving to the Government in certain circumstances, and I am quite prepared to give this Government power to give these immunities to any international organisation of which this Government approves; and this Govern- ment will come to the House and propose to the House, by an Order in Council, that certain privileges shall be given. We, on this side of the House, would not give immunity to such rackets as suggested, apparently seriously, by hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) and his illustration about the River Plate. If these international organisations—and as far as I know there is no definition of an international organisation, except that it must have a corporate personality——

May I ask what is the hon. and learned Member's authority for that statement?

The hon. Member will find it in any book on international law. If he looks up any of the authorities, he will find that international organisations must be possessed of a corporate personality—but international law, so far as I am aware, has never appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I, for my part, see no reason why the Government should not have the power to give international organisations the authority we desire them to have.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my hypothetical case of the River Plate. Would he consider a river authority based on four riparian States, anywhere in the world, a suitable body to receive these privileges?

That would depend entirely, I should imagine, on the particular circumstances in which this body was set up. One would ask oneself: Has it a corporate personality, and is it an international organisation? If it is not an international organisation then although my right hon. Friend camp to this House and suggested to us on these benches that we should give it immunity, I think we should say "No, it is not a suitable case." It remains always with this House to control anything any Government does in the creation of immunities. Let us build up this great structure of international law. I am thankful that at long last we have a Government and a Minister interested in this subject, and prepared to further it.

The Debate on this Amendment has ranged rather far. I would like to say a few words on this subject, of which I have some little experience, and bring the Committee back to the exact point of difference, when there is so much agreement between us. I will not follow on the lines of the hon. Member for Eton (Mr. Benn Levy), or the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) in what he told us about his knowledge of international law. I saw the learned Attorney-General looking a little nervous at some of the hon. and learned Member's definitions of a corporate body. May I venture to point out that, although he may have studied international law for 20 years, and although for 20 years he may have observed the failures of hon. Members on this side of the House in that respect, he does not appear to have studied the law of this Parliament? He referred to the overriding Act under which this Measure is to operate. I know of no legal system under which one Act overrides another.

This Bill is to amend the Act of 1944 and it is not proposed, as I understand it, to go beyond the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, except to introduce new classes which may be given powers, subject to Orders in Council, under the principal Act.

The hon. and learned Member has repeated what I ventured to point out was incorrect. This is not subject to an Act. One Act does not override another. This Bill is to amend the Act of 1944 in certain respects. The only point at issue, as I understand it—the Minister of State will forgive me if I am wrong, because I do not wish to add to the confusion—is whether any association brought within the ambit of the United Nations organisation should have these privileges, or whether the right of the Government to extend the privileges, not only in the form in which they are set out in the 1944 Act, but with these extra advantages, can be given to other organisations of an international character, which are not yet ranged under U.N.O. That is the only point at issue. When the Act of 1944 was introduced, I read, from my distant port in the Mediterranean, with some interest, the Debate on that occasion, and I observed that it was condemned by nearly the whole of the Labour Party. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman succeeded in wresting Crewe from us before then, he would have been in opposition to this Act of 1944, because there were no more fierce critics of it, than some of the most powerful Members of the present Administration. Therefore, I read HANSARD as it reached me—I think it was at Naples—with the detachment of one of those privileged people, importing, at the time, the necessary things for my own official use. I noticed, to be quite frank, that the particular immunity given in the 1944 Act to bodies like U.N.R.R.A. and the Transport Commission, with which I had a good deal to do, went unnecessarily wide. But, in point of fact, they did not operate, because, during the period of the war, all these bodies were operating within spheres which, at that time, were covered, not by the normal relations between one nation and another, but, within the kind of war conception, by the sphere of the supreme allied commander in the particular part of the world.

When U.N.R.R.A. officials came to us in Italy or in Greece, or, originally, when we had the Economic Board in North Africa, none of these immunities or rights were operating at all, because those bodies were operating in theatres of war and they were under the general discipline of the commander-in-chief. They entered the country with the approval of the combined chiefs of staff. Therefore, the Act of 1944 did not really make much difference to the operation of U.N.R.R.A. or of any other organisation during that time because with most of these countries we were nominally at war, and with some we were friends. With others, again, we were in an uncertain position—such as Vichy France in North Africa.

The Act of 1944, like this Bill, only affects what is done in this country. It does not include Italy at all. What was done in this country for U.N.R.R.A. was to give these privileges and immunities to its European regional office, a matter of the very highest possible importance.

But the operations were then covered, even in this country, by the Supreme Allied Commander and many things were controlled, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, by decisions of the combined chiefs of staff, much more important, in practice, than in——

Questions of policy, of course, are not affected by this in the least. U.N.R.R.A.'s rights were governed by the Act of 1944 in this country, and that is the point.

There were also periods in this country and in the British possessions, Colonies, and so forth, when it did operate, and the same priniciple applied in Malta where U.N.R.R.A. was operating at one time. I thought at the time that the Act was unnecessarily wide. However, there it is. It certainly did no great harm, and I am not pressing this unduly. I see no object in widening it at this moment, but, whether it be right or wrong to widen it, I want to bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the arguments which he put up first of all.

Like him, I am strongly of the opinion that these organisations will, in fact, only operate successfully to the degree to which they are brought under the United Nations organisation. It is the hope and ambition of all of us today that that organisation will succeed. It may be that our hopes will be disappointed and that we shall have to face new realities, and that we shall have to take decisions based upon what appear to be a more tragic view of the present movements of the world. But we have not come to that yet, and all our hopes and all our ambitions are, surely, placed upon the making of U.N.O. an effective organisation.

It is true that the rights under this Bill are permissive, but, as my right hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A, Salter) said, that is no excuse for legislation. It is not easy to amend legislation. It is not an excuse, and it has never been regarded in this House as an excuse, to say, "We will give you a power, but, of course, you need not use it." This arises out of the meetings in February and of the Convention This Bill is not intended to cover those other small organisations which have yet to be linked up. Its purpose is the implementing of the Convention to which we put our name in February. So far as it is for that, I am in favour of it. We have made the Convention, and we should keep to it. As I understood it, there were to be other discussions as to how far the application of these privileges shall extend to organisations not covered by the Convention in the United Nations organisation.

12.45 p.m.

My noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) raised the point with great clarity—and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite accepted it—that far from the line taken in this Amendment being hostile to the purpose of trying to strengthen U.N.O., the one hope we have left is that it is friendly to that purpose. So far as these diplomatic privileges—Press, importation, and all the rest—are concerned, they are important to an organisation. The pressure exerted will be to get such an organisation brought into the ambit of U.N.O. and not to allow it to break down into fragmentation. It is just that fragmentation which, I think hon. Members opposite would agree with me, is, perhaps, the greatest danger to the operation of the whole.

It may be that there will be divisions and regional arrangements under the whole, and I am not objecting to that. But if they come apart because the larger unit has failed, then they must threaten the whole. Therefore, I frankly and sincerely ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the Report stage, to see whether it has everything necessary. For U.N.R.R.A. we have the 1944 Act, and these minor extensions are not really necessary for the next few months; they all work perfectly already. We have all the things set out in small print in Part I of the First Schedule, and we do not need to bother about the others. Would it not be wiser to use this extra special advantage of being a registered association under U.N.O. as an inducement to become one of those associations, and to let the thing develop? I understood that there were to be further discussions as to the arranging of the organisations in their appropriate place. Therefore, to accept this Amendment today in its present form, or in another, would, I think, be to get universal agreement in this House to carry out the Convention, but not to go further than that.

Perhaps I might first answer the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) about the Anglo-American Palestine Committee. I was very glad to note that he accepted and agreed with what I said about the European Coal Organisation and the Danube River Commission. As to the Anglo-American Palestine Committee, the answer was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It is not an organisation; it is a purely temporary body. While I think it should have inde- pendence, it is obviously not the kind of body which ought to come under this Bill. We shall deal later on with the expert commissions appointed by the United Nations Council or Assembly. That is a different matter with which we are going to deal on another Amendment, so I will not go into it now. I repeat that this Bill, like the 1944 Act, deals with what is to happen in this country and not elsewhere. That fact is important when considering what was said by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson).

Or its possessions.

Yes, or its possessions. It affects all that was said by the hon. Member for Farnham about the River Plate and the lighthouse at Tangier. It may be—and I share the hope of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) that it will be—that if they were created and were useful bodies, the River Plate commission would be brought, first, under a Latin-American regional transport organisation and then under the United Nations organisation in a direct relationship. If that happened, or if the lighthouse were brought under the new shipping organisation which is now envisaged, it might well be in our interests, in order that other people might do the same thing elsewhere, that an agent of this River Plate commission, when he happened to be in this country on official duties—it would be only for a short period—should have immunity. But suppose that it is not under the United Nations organisation but that it is a river commission set up by a convention to which we are not a party. It is quite plain, as I tried to say before, that the agents of that body would have no immunities here of any kind.

That is very clear, and it is a most important point, but, to get back to the real case, do not the representatives of the Danube Commission only have these immunities in member countries?

At present that is certainly so. If the system remains in the future as it was in the past, namely, a convention to which a certain restricted number of countries were a party, only in those countries would immunities apply under this Bill. I hope and believe we shall always be parties to any river conventions in Europe, for example, the Danube. If we were, it would be to our interest to grant immunities to an agent of the Danube River Commission when he came here on official business in order that he might receive similar immunities when going to other countries.

Surely, for years and years there have been commissions of this kind in various parts of Europe? Why is it necessary in the case of this' particular commission suddenly to give it these privileges? The commissions have existed for generations.

Unless I am misinformed, their agents have had immunities. It is perfectly clear that it is desirable that they should have them. It is right that they should be included, but they would only get immunities if we were a party and brought in an Order in Council granting the immunities under this Bill.

Is the interpretation of this Bill that these immunities can only be given to organisations of which this country is a party?

Perhaps we could bring in an Order in Council for any Organisation, if we so desired, but I am not sure about that. I think the definition in the Bill would exclude it. It refers to international organisations to which H.M. Government is a party. Therefore, others would be excluded. The right hon. Member for Bromley said that the real point was that hon. Members opposite wanted this to apply only to organisations which might reasonably be held to be part of the United Nations system, and that it might be desirable to keep that point open in order to induce existing organisations, or organisations to be created, to come in and be a part of that system in order to get the greater privileges that would give. I explained that it is not always very easy—not all Members of the House would agree—to define the organisations which are part of the United Nations system and those which are not. I think hon. Members accept the argument that it is desirable to apply it to organisations which are not. I have spoken of the River Danube Commission, and I hope my argument carried conviction. That is definitely outside. But with regard to most of the organisations which will be in question and which the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he said we wanted some means of inducing them to come in, I think I can satisfy him that the plan of the Bill is the best for that purpose. To begin with, we want to apply the Bill to those organisations which exist or are to be created, firstly because the new system of the Convention is a better system than the system of 1944. I said on Second Reading that it does not only extend privileges, but it cuts some of them down to what is really required. The privileges of representatives to conferences are considerably cut down under Article 4 of the Convention—from the full immunities of a diplomatic envoy given to representatives under the 1944 Act.

On a point of Order. Is it not out of Order and confusing to discuss the privileges of representatives when the only subject is that of the privileges of organisations? I am not raising this point of Order to throw off the right hon. Gentleman, but because it is confusing.

Further to that point of Order. There are later Amendments on the Order Paper with regard to the position of representatives. I hope they will not be prejudiced by our engaging in a discussion about individuals now.

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing a number of Amendments together. In any case that argument will keep. We think this will be a better system under the Convention than that which existed under the 1944 Act and for that reason we want to apply it to these organisations. One cannot apply it to the organisations and not to the representatives. They must go together. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said, "Why do you not leave these things under the Act of 1944 until you have amended the constitution of the existing organisations or until the Secretary General has carried out the negotiations which are provided for in the Resolution of the Assembly?" As I explained on Second Reading, that is what we intend to do. We intend to leave the existing Orders in Council with regard to U.N.R.R.A. and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation as they are until the Secretary General has completed the negotiations and has determined what is to be the immunity granted to each of these or other organisations, and then, and then only, we shall make new Orders in Council.

May I ask whether that is a pledge to the House?

Yes.

That in no circumstances will new Orders in Council be made until the conditions the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned are satisfied?

Yes. I hope and believe that f made it plain on Second Reading that it was a pledge to the House. If not, I make an apology. We did not have very long that first afternoon, and I was trying to be brief in order to give the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) some time to speak.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not issue any new Orders in Council in respect of this kind of organisation until this negotiation was over. In other words, he is taking powers but pledging the House not to use them. That would be more impressive if the Government had not issued so many Orders in Council, including the one of 26th June on the European Coal Organisation.

Yes, but those were under the old Act.

Not the new Act?

They were under the old Act.

They will not extend the new privileges given in this Clause? Order No. 895 cannot be amended because of the powers the right hon. Gentleman has got, but the right hon. Gentleman will wait until this negotiation is brought to a successful conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman is taking powers which he does not intend to use. It is very important to know. The Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has asked, and the Committee would like to know, whether powers should be given which it is not intended to use or whether an amending Bill should be introduced when the time comes.

I have said that we do not intend to change these Orders in Council, but to keep them under the Act of 1944, but since——

The right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading that the privileges granted in the past were mainly the same as those now being granted but they would no longer apply.

That is our purpose in the future. That is what the resolution of the Assembly lays down. I am sure that hon. Members, when they think about it, will agree that it is desirable. It is desirable to have the privileges more or less the same for all these organisations, so that the governments will know where they are.

Is not the difficulty that the present Bill amends Part II of the 1944 Act? The existing Orders in Council, and the one about the coal organisation, say that Part II of the 1944 Act shall apply. When amended, will not the amended part apply? Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will be unable to keep his pledge, because new privileges created by this Measure will automatically apply.

Nothing automatically applies until the Government make an Order in Council.

The Order in Council is made.

But that Order in Council refers to Part II of the Act of 1944.

It will be amended. It will be different.

I will consult my legal advisers on whether there is a point there, with which we ought to deal on the Report stage.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about it on the Report stage?

Certainly.

One merges into the other.

In the work that the Secretary General has to do to unify the immunities of these different organisations, he must base himself on this new Convention. That is the instruction of the Assembly The Convention lays down the maximum he may grant. It seems quite clear that it is a right basis for this Bill to apply. It would be absurd to have a new Bill for this purpose for each separate Organisation.

I am sorry that the Senior Burgess for Oxford (Sir A. Salter) is not present, because I wanted to answer what he said about the Bill being "permissive." I have said that nothing could be done about an Order in Council without the approval of the House, because the House is master of what the Government can do. There is no real danger there. I do not know whether I ought once more to answer what the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said about publications and Press rates. I am very-glad to have the assurance of hon. Members opposite that they are entirely friendly to the United Nations, and to this Bill. I confess I do not find it easy to believe that when I listen to the eloquence of the noble Lord. We want these rights for these organisations because they will help the organisations to succeed, and it is most important that they should succeed.

The right hon, Gentleman has been very patient with interruptions, as he always is. As always, he has tried very courteously and clearly to give us the maximum amount of information. The trouble is that information, as he and I know, reaches one in tabloid form at various stages, and these things are very complicated. I understand from what he has now told us that he agrees with our general purpose and that these additional privileges shall not be given under this Act to organisations other than those covered by the convention until a negotiation has taken place which brings them in. In other words in regard to the privileges given, for instance, under the Order to which I referred—dealing with the coal organisation—he would not issue a new Order in Council extending these new privileges until some later stage.

The point has been raised as to whether, however anxious the Minister of State is to keep the pledge, it is possible for him to do so, because the moment the new Act becomes law, this Order issued under Part II becomes a new thing by being amended and would automatically extend these new privileges. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would he precluded from——

rose——

Perhaps I might finish my sentence. We have plenty of time.

May. I draw attention to Clause 1 (2) of this Bill, which definitely answers the question raised?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into the point again. He has given us a pledge which we of course accept, that if he can do so, he will deal with it. He may be able to make some change on the Report stage. On that very strong admission of what is really the substance of our case—that we want to deal with the United Nations organisations as provided in the Convention—after consultation with my hon. Friends we do not feel that we ought to do anything but accept the proposal the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know he will carry it out in that spirit. I know he will realise in how much more agreeable and friendly a fashion he is being treated in the conduct of this Bill than was his predecessor by the leading Members of the then Opposition. Therefore, I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Major MottRadclyffe) will, on that clear assurance, be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I think I ought to get this absolutely clear. The point raised by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) was answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) who knows these things very well. It is in Clause 1 (2) of the Bill:

"The foregoing subsection shall not affect the operation of any Order in Council under section one of the principal Act made before the commencement of this Act."

In other words, we now provide that an Order made under the Act of 1944 shall continue until we withdraw it and replace it by another. That applies to all existing organisations, including the very recent Order on the European Coal Organisation.

It looks like that, but should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would consult his legal authorities about it. It looks as if it should not affect the operation, and stop the Order working, but I am not so sure. I would be grateful if he would take legal advice or: whether it stops the operation of the Order in Council. In other words, the object was, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to prevent an existing Order in Council stopping, but T have my doubts whether the extended Part II of the 1944 Act would not be inserted automatically in a new Order in Council.

I will have a look at it, but I do not think that is so. The intention remains, in any case, to keep it as it was. I will look into the point which the hon. Member has raised. This applies to existing organisations. Suppose this Bill becomes an Act in a few weeks time, and suppose the Health Organisation now envisaged were brought into existence in the autumn of this year, and the Secretary-General had all his arrangements quite clear about the immunities that that organisation is to have, and they are put in the right form under the Convention—that is to say the sort of thing we shall do by Order in Council under this Bill—then in those circumstances, I would not like to pledge myself not to make an Order in Council for the Health Organisation under this Measure, instead of under the Act of 1944. I hope that is quite plain. I will say more about it.

We wish to be clear. The real distinction, we take it, is that the health organisation—the right hon. Gentleman has given us a very good example—which ought to be, and presumably will be, a real genuine pukka United Nations organisation, will be included; but if it is one which is doubtful —local or regional—it is not brought in, and the mere fact that the Government have been a party to it, will not make them include it in this Bill.

Yes. I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman a pledge to that effect. I may be compelled to say something about it on the Report stage, but I think it is clear enough. I am much obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman said about withdrawing the Amendment.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's conciliatory attitude, and on the assumption that he will clear up this legal point by the time the Report stage is reached, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out Subsection (3).

Section 1 (6) of the 1944 Act provided that that Section, and Section 2—the two chief Sections—should remain in force for the period of five years, and then expire, unless within that time an Address had been moved to His Majesty by each House, in which case the Act would have a further currency of five years. The Government are here seeking to deprive this House of the opportunity which the Government, in 1944, gave to the House, of reviewing the operation of this Measure. It might interest the Committee if I remind them that when the Act of 1944 was introduced it was a permanent Measure, and there was no provision for a review by Parliament. Then, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) spoke with regard to the introduction of this provision, and gave the reasons for the Amendment. He said that one of the objections to the Bill as it was originally introduced was—I quote his words:

" In the second place, there was no time limit on the operation of the Bill and, accordingly, what the Foreign Secretary did under it passed to a very great extent out of the control of Parliament.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 2087.]

That was the reason for the insertion of Section 1 (6) of the 1944 Act, that this House would retain control to a considerable extent over what the Foreign Secretary did under that Act.

1.15 p.m.

I submit that the desirability of this House retaining that control still exists, and that the position in that regard has not altered. It is interesting to note that when my right hon. Friend moved the Government Amendment to the 1944 Act, putting in this proviso with regard to the time limit, it was not objected to by Members of the party opposite. Indeed it would not be putting it too high to say that they welcomed it. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India made a speech in the discussion on that Amendment, in which he merely asked that further consideration should be given to the whole question of diplomatic immunities and privileges generally. Bearing in mind that the only object of providing for this review at the end of five years was to retain Parliamentary control, it is not without some interest that one looks at the arguments used by the Minister of State in support of the abolition of this time limit. He said:

" The last point is the change in the time for which the immunities are granted. Under the 1944 Act there was a five-year limitation. The Act lapsed unless it was continued by a Resolution of Parliament. At that time, of course, the Act was intended primarily for bodies of a temporary kind, such as U.N.R.R.A. and the European transport organisation. We hope that the United Nations institutions are to endure, and also, the other organisations which we are setting up, and, therefore, we have made this without time limit.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1946., Vol. 424, c. 647.]

I must say that that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech appeared to me to show a lamentable and entirely regrettable confusion of thought. We on this side of the Committee join with him in the hope that the United Nations institutions, and also the other international organisations which are being set up, will endure, but that is no reason for taking away power of review from this House. The two matters are entirely disconnected If this was a Bill making provision solely for U.N.O. and not for any other organisation independent of U.N.O.—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand I am trying to put the point as shortly as I can, and that by "solely for U.N.O." I mean any organisation which comes under U.N.O's umbrella—if it had not this wider scope, his argument for saying. "We can settle it now and there need not be any review", would be stronger. But this Bill amending the 1944 Act is not limited to that. It goes far wider than that. The only point at issue on this Amendment is not whether, by accepting the Amendment, we are expressing any hope or fear that any of these international organisations may cease to exist, but whether this House, at the end of five years, should have an opportunity of considering the position with regard to all these privileges.

In his second speech on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman said that I had based my case on two propositions. I would like to quote his actual words:

" Firstly, he said that diplomatic immunities gave privileges of a most extraordinary and objectionable kind.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1946; Vol. 424, C. 2122.]

If he will read what I said, he will see that that was not my proposition at all. I did say that I thought the time had come for careful consideration of the privileges and immunities generally. I am glad to see that two years ago, the noble Lord who is now Secretary of State for India agreed with me. In war- time it was not possible to have such a general review. We know that consideration of this matter has been undertaken by the United Nations organisation.

All those arguments reinforce the desirability of giving the House an opportunity of reviewing the matter at the end of five years and without any further control over the acts of the Foreign Secretary, apart from the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say, that when an Order in Council is introduced one can pray against it. One cannot amend it, although 90 per cent. of it may be all right and 10 per cent. of it entirely objectionable. This is a serious Amendment and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that, pending careful review of the whole extent of these privileges and immunities—some of them are very old and might well be abolished as serving no useful purpose—we should at least retain the right of reconsideration by this House, I ask the Minister to meet -us in regard to this reasonable Amendment.

The hon. and learned Member has stated his case with moderation and as persuasively as possible. I cannot accept the Amendment and, if necessary, we shall vote against it. I have not much to add to what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1944. That Measure was drawn mostly with international organisations of a temporary kind, or with a limited mandate, in mind. Many international organisations which now exist were not then in being.

I accept that point. Our point is that the Bill was introduced as a permanent Measure and was modified by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was then a Member, so as to give Parliament a right of reconsideration. We are not given that right merely because some of the organisations which might benefit under the Bill were temporary.

I am arguing that circumstances now are different. There was no charter then and many of the present international bodies did not exist. Now they do. The Charter has been signed and brought to this House, approved, and ratified.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there ought to be a general review of the matter. That is what has happened, and that is why the Bill is brought forward. A Convention was drawn up by the Assembly. It was intended to apply not only to the United Nations Organisation but to all international organisations. The Convention was the result of a review of the whole question carried out by 51 Governments for a period of six months in the Executive Commission, the Preparatory Commission and the Assembly itself. The result of it was the Convention. The Charter imposed the obligation on all Members of the United Nations to grant immunities to certain bodies. The Assembly followed the plan recommended in the Charter and drew up a Convention, which 51 nations there represented accepted without any reservation. Since the Charter and the Convention had no time limit, it would be inappropriate for us to insert a time limit in the Bill. As the hon. and learned Member has said, nothing can be done without an Order in Council, and any Order in Council can be annulled by a Prayer. His only point is that we cannot put forward Amendments by a Prayer, but if there were a Debate on the Prayer and there was evidently a good case for 10 per cent. of the Order being reconsidered, is it likely that any Government would resist it?

I think the hon. and learned Member has reasonable assurance that if there is a genuine abuse, Parliament will see to it that it is put right. I recall, after working for 20 years a very similar system under the League of Nations, that there never v as a case of abuse brought to our notice. We have no reason to expect abuse in the future. The Convention has been accepted without reservation by 51 nations and it will impose a burden in the granting of immunities. The Convention will be of more effect in countries where the seats of these Organisations are established, than it will be with us, as we shall probably have no seat of that kind at all. It would be unfortunate if we were to insert a time limit. That example might be followed in other countries, with regrettable results.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman twice, no doubt unintentionally, misled the House, when he said that we should not insert a time limit, whereas really the question is whether he ought now to remove a time limit.

I did not imply that it was not in the power of this Committee to do so. I only said that the Government did not want to do so.

The Minister misses my point. He spoke of inserting a time limit. The point I am making is that this Amendment resists the excision of a time limit, which is a very different thing. And I think there is a good reason for leaving a time limit there. The right hon. Gentleman has told us there has been a very satisfactory general review of the whole question of privilege. I do not assume that this is the moment to discuss that aspect of the subject, but I observed from the Debate on the last Amendment that the general question of diplomatic privileges their origin and usage was in Order and I suppose might be discussed on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The hon. Member must not take that for granted. Any discussion which may have taken place, had to be relevant to the Motion before the Committee.

We have been led to believe that because 51 nations get together there was a sufficient examination of a question. Incidentally that is an odd argument to come from the present Government, which has had a way of sending important Bills to be considered by small committees. Anyway nothing has been said here about profound changes in the diplomatic privileges among nations. Diplomatic privileges have existed from all time, but now they are being made into something quite different. If we are to make it into something quite different from what there has been before, we had better do that for an experimental period. There is first the point that the old diplomatic privilege was not a convention in the sense of a convention against black boots with a brown hat, but convention in the sense of an agreement, a swop, that there should be permitted and reciprocal rights for those who conduct diplomatic negotiations between two or more States. We are here making something different, because the parties are not the same kind of party, and this is, I think, sere to be a matter of very great practical importance.

The right hon. Gentleman tells us that there has never been a case of any abuse of privilege under the League of Nations by officials or employees. I think that is too optimistic a declaration. There may often be abuses of all sorts of things which do not come to light, and I am perfectly certain there are, have been, and always will be abuses of ordinary diplomatic privilege. When they get to the point where they really are a nuisance or a scandal, what happens? Someone goes to the other party and says "We cannot have that," or if the worst comes to worst, "Remove that fellow." I am not suggesting that the absence of that possibility is a conclusive reason why we ought not to extend privilege as it is now proposed to extend it, but I am suggesting that diplomatic privilege is going to be of a different order from what it has been before, because it will not have the sanction of reciprocity which there has been before and, therefore, the argument is now much stronger than it was at the time of the wartime legislation, which operates now, for an experimental period. We were then in conditions, as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, as was pointed out on the last Amendment and as is still relevant on this, that what mattered far more than statutory or other privileges was to be persona grata to the effective authorities, particularly military and transport authorities.

I think that the argument for the need of experience is now much stronger than it was before, and also much stronger because of two reasons to which the right hon. Gentleman has not, I think, directed his attention.

The first is this. We do not know how or when the Convention which this Bill is designed to apply to our country, how or when that Convention is going to be implemented by other countries. It might—though I can believe that for technical reasons this may have been impossible—have been wise to have had some common form of Bill, which could not, of course, have gone through the American Congress for instance, and our House exactly in the same words but from which one might have seen how the thing was being done. That is not the way it it being done. We have not been told—and I apologise here for being ignorant but those of us who try to attend to a variety of subjects cannot be as fully informed as those who quite properly stick to their lasts—of any similar action yet taken in any other country. We do not know how far they are going. We may find different implications or different interpretations, either way, more or less, from those we are following or from what Order in Council is going to do. I should have thought that it would be highly desirable, to meet that case, that the statute should not be too permanent.

The second reason is a rather different one, but connected: that we do not yet know—we shall have to argue this again on another Amendment—how much the Convention is to be extended, because page 8 of the Convention paper goes beyond the completed agreement, invites the members to do various things, makes suggestions and so forth. We are being invited—we have an Amendment on the point and I will not discuss it now—to legislate now in this House upon the basis that there will be extensions to the Convention of certain kinds, which may not prove to be accepted when the Assembly meets in the Autumn. That Assembly may have different views, or they may not even meet in the Autumn, or a thousand different things may happen. None of us can know. All these reasons make the argument for a not too long term, something at least short of permanency, in connection with this Bill, not weaker but stronger than in regard to the Bill of 1944, which is now the operative Act. I therefore regret to find the right hon. Gentleman's argument inconclusive and unsatisfactory, and I hope my hon. Friends will continue to press this Amendment.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, because, clearly, all these institutions are likely to be in the experimental field for some years yet and, although we all share the hope that they will prove entirely successful and enduring, we must recognise the fact that the experimental field is there. The point I wish particularly to invite the attention of the Committee to is this—the right hon. Gentleman has kept insisting all today and especially when he replied to this Amendment that the application of this legislation will always be under the control of the House of Commons because it has to be applied in each particular case by Order in Council. It is perfectly true in a sense but only in a limited sense, to say that the application will remain under the control of the House. It will remain under the control of the House in each particular case for 4o days precisely and no more, because after 40 days, from the presentation of the Order in Council, if the Order has not been annulled, it will pass beyond the reach of the House and beyond recall. There is no machinery that I know of by which this House can compel the Government to bring the Order back for review by the House. This should be recognised, because it may well be that when the tight hon. Gentleman or some other Minister lays an Order before the House it might appear reasonable, a most cogent argument must be advanced for its reception, yet in the space of 40 days no hon. Member may think fit to move its annulment. The matter may then pass beyond the control of the House without any discussion.

It is, I think, almost certain to happen in many cases that at the time an Order is presented it may appear generally acceptable to the House, and no hon. Member may think it is desirable to challenge it. But 40 days is a very short period, especially in world affairs, and it may be that a few months later many hon. Members would deeply regret that the Order was allowed to pass Therefore, I put it to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State has rather overstated his case in so far as he rested it upon control being retained by the House over Orders in Council. In fact, that control is only a fleeting control, and one upon which this House ought not to rely. I think that the case put up by my hon. and learned Friend on this Amendment for retaining a time limit, should be accepted.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, who was so helpful to us on an earlier Amendment, has not been able to repeat those helpful tactics on this occasion. When he replied to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) it seemed to me that he missed the main point of this Amendment. What we object to is the fact that the Bill does not apply only to U.N.O. If it were to apply only to organisations under the umbrella of U.N.O., there might be a considerable argument for not having a time limit, but we are in the difficulty that there are a number of other organisations to which the Bill can apply which are outside the scope of U.N.O. altogether. In view of that, I do not think it is unreasonable to submit that Parliament should have the power of review in five years. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman, with all his optimism for the future, would not disagree with the suggestion that circumstances may change a very great deal in five years and that what may be commendable and legitimate now might have a very different aspect if no time limit is placed upon the operation of this Bill.

I hope that we shall have from the Minister of State a few more words upon this matter. If I understood his argument correctly, his only answer to my argument can be summarised as follows, and, no doubt, he will correct me if I summarise it wrongly. He said that there is now no need for Parliament to have any opportunity of reviewing the operation of this Act because there are 51 nations agreeing to this Convention, and they have reviewed all the privileges and immunities. But, of course, if one reads the Convention, that argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is not 100 per cent. accurate. Looking at page 8 of the Convention, with regard to the unification of privileges and immunities enjoyed by the United Nations and various specialised agencies, we find that:

" The General Assembly instructs the Secretary-General to open negotiations with a view to the reconsideration in the light both of the General Convention … of the provisions under which the specialised agencies at present enjoy privileges and immunities."

It is clear from that Convention that the extent of privileges and immunities has not been agreed upon by the General Assembly. Therefore, the argument that we should part with all powers by which Parliament can review the operation of this Bill, because it has all been agreed in the Convention, falls to the ground.

The right hon. Gentleman also fell into the error of assuming that this Bill only dealt with organisations under U.N.O. If it did, as I said, it would be much easier to deal with the situation, but it goes far beyond the U.N.O. organisations. The reason for having the operation of a time limit so that the matter can come back before Parliament is so that we can see to what extent and in what way any further change is needed with regard to those other organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) put forward a very strong point. This House will have an opportunity of saying yea or nay to the grant of immunities to organisations such as the European Coal Organisation. But once they have done that, those privileges will continue for so long as that Order in Council remains in force, and there will be no further opportunity for this House to say that the time has come when that organisation—an organisation not connected with U.N.O.—should cease to have those privileges. It is for that reason, among others, that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, without in any way wishing to suggest that the immunities of the U.N.O. organisations should not be permanent, that he will accept this Amendment in order to give Parliament an opportunity of considering the operation of the Act with regard to what I may call the non-U.N.O. organisations.

I shall do the best I can to answer the points that have been made. I am very pleased to know that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) thought that I was helpful on his first Amendment. I was helpful because hon. Members opposite found that what I said was right, and it was, in fact, only an expansion of what I said on Second Reading. Unfortunately, I cannot accept this Amendment, again for the reason that I am right. I am certain that I am right, and I am sorry that this time I have not been able to persuade hon. Members opposite. Perhaps I will succeed before I have finished. I have said time alter time—and, no doubt, I shall have to say it many more times—this Convention lays down the maximum rights which may be given to other organisations which may be created in future.

I am not clear what is meant by the word "unification which is oddly used. I understand it means that though it is true that there is a maximum, the intention is that as near as possible everybody shall be on the same level. If that is so, does it not mean that the maximum will be the standard?

I agree that the word "unification" is a difficult word. It was hard to find a better one. Perhaps in this Committee we might have said "consolidation." What is intended is that people of appropriate rank, whether they are higher officials or subordinate officials, or the organisation itself, should have the rights and immunities which are needed for their work, and that if they happen to be servants of or representatives to the Assembly, or servants of or representatives to the Conference of the Food and Agricultural Organisation, broadly, those rights should be the same so that they know where they are and what they can do, and so that the Governments know where they are. It is a maximum because there are some things allowed under this Convention which would not be required for all the organisations. For example, one thing laid down—it is not in terms in the Covention, but it is agreed that it is possible for the United Nations Assembly to do it if it so desires—is the power to establish a broadcasting station of its own. In my view, it would not be appropriate that the Danube River Commission or the Food and Agricultural Organisation should be able to establish a broadcasting station of its own. In the Order in Council which we have made for the one, we might give that power to the United Nations Organisation if we thought it right to do so, but we would probably not want to do it for the others. That is why we call this a maximum from which certain things can be taken away. I have other illustrations in mind, and they will arise on other Amendments.

I fully accept what the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pick-thorn) said about the nature of this Amendment. The Movers of this Amendment are resisting the excision of the time limit which stands in the Act of 1944. We think it right to remove it. We do not think it right to retain it on the ground which the hon. Member has suggested, that further experiment in this new system of international privileges and immunities is required. I said that I thought that the result of the deliberations of the 51 nations was important, because it is significant that so many countries, having met together for a period as long as six months, and having debated this matter very fully, should have arrived at unanimous agreement without reservation by any of them. I think it is very striking. I submit they were able to do that precisely because they had already had a long period of experimentation. They had had the ex- perience of the League of Nations, of the Permanent Court of International Justice, of the International Labour Organisation; and, in more recent times, they, and particularly ourselves, and the United States, have had the experience of U.N.R.R.A., the European Transport Organisation and so on. In my view, that was all experimentation. Certain rules have been laid down, worked out and looked at in practice and they were taken into account in drawing up this Convention.

If a case is to be put up based largely on U.N.R.R.A., should not it have been preceded by a really full statement of what is known about U.N.R.R.A., and all the doubts about U.N.R.R.A.?

I am not arguing largely on U.N.R.R.A. at all. I am only saying these 51 Governments had the experience of U.N.R.R.A., and agreed to this Convention in the light of that experience. The hon. Member said there was no measure of reciprocity, and that in diplomatic business you have, of course, reciprocity. I think there is reciprocity. Each member gives these immunities on the understanding that the rest do the same. We have in fact, not touched Section 4 of the original Act of 1944. That Section will stand. It says:

" Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be construed as precluding His Majesty from declining to accord immunities or privileges to, or withdrawing immunities or privileges from, nationals or representatives of any Power on the ground that that Power is failing to accord corresponding immunities or privileges to British nationals or representatives."

I think, with respect, the point of the hon. Member about reciprocity is fully met.

rose——

Oh!

I have been here all day, and I am entitled to speak. The right hon. Gentleman cannot really say there is reciprocity between two entities which are not comparable, in the same sense in which those reciprocities arise between entities like national States, which are comparable. The fact that various national States have reciprocity between themselves does not amount to reciprocity between each of them and this new entity.

Yes: even in that sense I think the hon. Member is wrong. We give certain immunities to officials of the organisation, but it is all part of the whole system that we get immunities for our representatives and their staffs when they go to the meeting. Is that not reciprocity?

No.

It is part of a single system. In any case, it is in the public interest. I do not want to go further. I do not want to justify the immunities given to international officials on the ground of reciprocity. The immunities are given because it is to the general advantage, and to our national advantage, that they should be given. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not challenge that. If he does I am sure he will not be supported by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, because in the Second Reading Debate they accepted fully what I have said on that point. I was asked if I had any information about what other Governments are doing about this Convention? I have not. I hope we may be the first to be able to ratify it and to bring it into force. I hope that may have a good effect on others. I now refer to the question of abuse. The point about Orders in Council, Prayers, and the control of time limits is based on the theory that there will be——

One question on the point about the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped we would be the first to ratify it, and that other nations would follow our example. Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication, for example, with the Dominions as to their intentions?

Yes, we have been in consultation with the Dominions. Of course, we worked very closely with them in the preparation of this. They were fully in agreement, and their delegations to the Assembly accepted this without reservation. We have been in consultation throughout. It is a matter of Parliamentary time and procedure. I have no doubt all the Members of the United Nations will ratify it. I only express the hope that His Majesty's Government may always be the leaders in such matters as this. On the question of abuse, and what lies behind it, there never has been any arrangement so fully safe- guarded against the abuse of privilege as this. The Senior Burgess for Cambridge University rightly said that under the old system of immunities for diplomatic privileges, it was done partly in a rather informal way, and in the last resort one might say to a Government "Get rid of this chap." It was not quite so informal as that; it was not quite so much without formal safeguards, but still, that was more or less the system. Here, written into the Convention, is the duty to waive an immunity whenever it is necessary for the execution of justice, provided that can be done without frustrating the purpose for which the immunity was given. It is written in the Convention. The machinery for it is established. If there is any dispute whether it ought to be done or not, that will go to a tribunal which the United Nations are to set up. Again, if there is a dispute about the work of the tribunal, it goes, in the last resort, to the International Court of Justice. Nothing could be more complete. If there is abuse, I am perfectly certain this Committee will find a way of calling attention to it, and that Parliament will put it right. In those circumstances I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman, of course, did not deal with my point at all, except to the extent that he said it was all bound up with the question of possible abuses. If he is not prepared to accept the Amendment to the Bill itself, will he give an undertaking that when the Orders in Council are made they should contain their own time limit, not exceeding five years? I have not had an opportunity of consulting my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) who moved the Amendment, but I think that if an undertaking were given to insert in each Order a time limit, not exceeding five years, that would meet the purposes of the Amendment.

I do not think I can do that. I do not want to be obstructive or difficult, but I think it would be making trouble for nothing. If there is abuse, under this, and if trouble arises, I feel certain Parliament will put it right. If there is not, why bother about a time limit and a whole set of new Orders, which would cause a great deal of work for a lot of people, for no useful purpose?

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very good case, as he always does. The point at issue is, I fully admit, from one aspect not a point of very great immediate substance, since this is only to decide whether this Bill shall remain permanently in being or whether, in a period of five years, Parliament shall have to pass fresh legislation in the light of the experience of those years. That is the only point at issue. If I remember aright, this limiting period was introduced to meet tremendous pressure from all sides of the House of Cornmons—more particularly from the Socialist benches—in regard to the Act of 1944. That Act was brought in and very ill received, and the most powerful Government of modern times, representing every party in the State——

No.

——representing every party in the State that made any contribution to national life, gave in to that pressure when it could quite easily have resisted it, because in 1944 the mind of the nation was not really so much on these minor matters of diplomatic privileges.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman making a mistake? Was not that powerful Government making a contribution to the national debt?

It was so difficult to follow the precise views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and his party about the war during the last six years that I really cannot be drawn into that difficult topic. War is good when Mr. Stalin approves of it and bad when he disapproves of it. A thing is right when the hon. Member receives orders to do it, and wrong at other times.

I think the right hon. Gentleman had better confine his remarks to the Amendment.

I was saying that this time limit was introduced to meet the general view of the House, expressed from all sides, in the last Parliament. The view was that it would be as well to review this matter, to force Parliament to take this matter into legislative review, at the end of a period of experiment. That conces- sion was made. It was, if you like, wrung out of the Government, but it was made by the Government at that time. Therefore, I do not think that, in principle, the right hon. Gentleman can have much objection to the conception that, after the experimental period, we should review the working of this very great extension of the doctrine of diplomatic privilege into a great number of new fields. Against that, the right hon. Gentleman says—and, if I understand his argument correctly, says with some force—" That was in a period when things were not so stable. Now the United Nations has come into being, now this Convention has been passed, now, therefore, the rules and regulations governing immunities and privileges under the Convention should be made permanent and not temporary."

I think that would be a fair statement of the Minister's argument. He says that the conception of its being temporary belonged to the period during the war, before the United Nations had really met, and before it was possible to devise a proper code to suit all these varying problems. He says that the United Nations have now met, they have devised a code, and therefore, he says, with force, there is no longer the same purpose for making this temporary as there was then. That would be true if this Bill were limited only, as we sought to limit it in the last Amendment, to the United Nations organisations and the subjects under the Convention. If that were so, I would certainly agree that it should be made permanent, but if it is wider, I think it is just on that point of where the margin comes between what one might call official United Nations organisations and others, that Parliament ought to make the review in five years' time. If it was right for the last Government to make that concession, it is equally right to agree to it now, because the permanence affects only a limited class, and the Bill goes wider than that class.

I do not see what the right hon. Gentleman would lose by making this concession. What would he lose? The Government, if they were in office in five years' time, or some succeeding Government, would have to introduce a short Bill to put the matter precisely right with regard to what one might call these marginal organisations. I do not see what the right hon. Gentleman would lose, and he would be making a concession which would, I think, be agreeable to the whole Committee. It would make no difference to the immediately coming five years. It would retain in the possession of Parliament the duty, not just to let the thing go on automatically without anybody bothering about it, but the duty to review the whole position in the light of the experience of five years. That would not be obstructive to any purpose, because nothing would happen for five years. It would merely continue the arrangement we agreed to in the last Parliament as a result of the general views of all sides of the House, and it would be fully justified by the fact that the permanent arrangements are not the only arrangements which are covered by

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out Subsection (4).

This Subsection was put in, on the Third Reading, I believe, in another place, to safeguard the privileges of this House in matters of finance. It is now desirable that we should remove it because this Bill is intended to deal with matters of taxation.

I am sorry that I do not quite understand the explanation. Do I understand that this Subsection is one which was inserted on a Government Motion in another place? Is that right?

Yes.

That is a procedure peculiar to another place, to move Amendments on the Third Reading of a Bill. I understand, then, that on a Government Motion this Subsection was added to the Bill at the last possible moment. I hope I am not more obtuse than other hon. Members, but I do not understand the technical reasons—I am sure that is what they are—why that Government should, at the last moment, move this addition to the Bill in another place, and now, here, at one move to omit it. I am sure it is the appropriate thing to do, but I should be interested, and so would all of us, to know why. It seems to be a change of policy, which cannot be accounted for by a mere difference between Commoners and Peers.

I think that there are several hon. Members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who could give a better explanation than I can, I do not profess to be a constitutional lawyer. But I understand that in matters of finance it is the privilege of this House to make proposals, and that in another place proposals about finance cannot be made. Unless this Subsection had appeared in the Bill as adopted in another place, the Clause might have applied to matters of taxation. Therefore, they had to put it in, to safeguard our privilege. We take it out, because we want the Bill to apply to finance. I hope that that is an intelligible explanation.

I think I do understand. I am very grateful to the Minister of State. As I understand it, it is intended that the Bill should confer upon the Government the power of making Orders regarding taxes and rates; and that the Subsection was put in, in order to demonstrate the desire of His Majesty's Government in another place that the other place should not interfere with the privilege of the House of Commons; and now the Subsection is omitted. I quite understand, and I am very grateful for the explanation. It seems a complicated procedure, but I have no doubt it is necessary. Considering the good fortune by which, through oversight, the Government got away with this Bill in another place, I think it is a small price to have paid.

I do not think we ought to dispose of this Clause before, once again, calling attention to the undesirable state of affairs that is arising, as I think, from the point of view of Parliament over this Clause. When the original Bill was introduced, as a result of pressure from Members of the Socialist Party now sitting on the benches opposite who took grave objection to the form of the Bill—not Tories, but Socialists—because it was considered undemocratic, the Government of the day put the Bill in a certain form, With a cynicism I have seldom seen equalled in my long Parliamentary experience, as soon as that party gets into power, it forgets all about its objections on the ground of the Bill being undemocratic. The hon. Members who objected to this Clause have not been in the Committee for this Debate. The Government bring in a Bill to restore the form which existed before, and to which their colleagues, now in the Government, but then on the other side, objected. If that is not a piece of Parliamentary cynicism, I do not know what is; and I hope it will go on record that that is how the Socialist Party interpret their precious views, about what is right and wrong, when they are in office and when they are in Opposition.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out from "Nations," to the end of the Clause.

I do not feel confident that I fully understand this, but I hope to put my difficulties in such a way that the Minister may find it easy to clarify the matter.

The Minister told us at an earlier stage that the Assembly had decided with regard to the International Court of Justice that its privileges and disputes on immunities should be settled in September next after the Court had given advice. I do not find that that is exactly what the words on page 8 say. They recommend that until further action has been taken the rules which have been applied to the Permanent Court of International Justice should be observed by members in relation to the International Court of Justice. They decided above that that question should be considered as soon as possible. They do not fix a date, though for all I know, it may be overwhelmingly probable that the thing will be settled in September.

What is clear, as the Minister has said on the last Amendment, is that we are the first Legislature to be passing a Bill to implement that part of the Convention which was a completed convention, agreed and desired by the United Nations. But we are going beyond that, because if we enact paragraph (b), we appear to be enacting about an International Court of Justice, and we appear to be enacting now, a settlement on what was recommended should be left for discussion and for final decision, this September perhaps. If that is so, it seems to me that it needs explanation. There seems to be no reason at all for it. I should have thought that we had plenty of legislative work before us this Session, and there does not seem any reason why we should be legislating about something not yet decided and on which, so far as I can understand, the relevant authority has not even recommended that there should be legislation or implementation. The Members of the Court at this First Session are invited to consider this question, and then the General Assembly is going to consider it, but meanwhile the General Assembly recommends that certain interim arrangements shall be followed, and presumably that implies that they would be sufficient. That being so, I find it difficult to see why we should be doing what we are now asked to do. It seems to me to be carrying beyond the point even of logical absurdity this habit of the Government asking for statutory authority well in advance of any possible need for it, and asking for more statutory authority than, they say, they are going to use.

It has become common form for Ministers to say, "You can give us statutory authority without any qualms, because in fact we are not going to use it more than 80 per cent., 30 per cent., or 50 per cent." This seems to be an extreme case of this habit. The Minister has an uneasy conscience in the matter. He says, "It may be said that we are asking for a blank cheque "—I think that is what he is asking for. There cannot be any reason why the House should be so submissive to the Government; for all I have to say to the contrary, it very rightly should implement that part of the Convention which really is the Convention and really deals with the United Nations, but beyond that we have been asked, especially just now when the Government voted us down, to make statutory more than the Commission agreed to. And now it goes quite outside it, and, as far the plain words go, it appears to go against it; we appear to be doing not only more than we are asked to do, but pursuing a course different from that recommended. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will think it right to accept this Amendment.

The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), on the face of it, has made a very strong case. He is quite right in saying that we are asking for a blank cheque, but it is an extraordinarily small one, as I hope I shall be able to persuade him. As to prognostication about the future, none of us can know, but I think that it is overwhelmingly probable that the Court will put their recommendations to the Assembly this summer—indeed I think they have done it already. The Assembly will certainly deal with them as soon as they get them. I think that that is overwhelmingly probable. Why we put this forward in the Bill is because the main obligation to be assumed in this matter is already shown by our acceptance of the Statute of the Court, and the Statute of the Court is declared in the Charter to form an integral part of the Charter. It therefore came before the House. It states:

" when engaged on the business of the Court, shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities "—

and—

" that their salaries, allowances and pensions shall be free of all taxation."

It also states:

" agents, counsel and advocates of parties before the Court shall enjoy all privileges and immunities necessary for the exercise of their independence and duties."

The main obligations are really there, it is the details which we should normally settle by Order in Council. The House of Commons has agreed already that it is necessary, and you must deal with the details by Order in Council. That is the cheque for which I am asking, and it is an extraordinarily small one.

There is also the point about the pressure of legislation. It is for that reason that we are dealing with this here, and because we do not want to bring in another Bill. I think it is right for the Committee to consider the practical effect in terms of the immunities claimed and granted which these people will have. The fact is that 99.5 per cent. of all the effect of this arrangement to be made will be on Dutch soil—the.05 per cent. that may affect any one on British soil will be very small indeed. I hope we shall proceed on the basis of the privilege granted to the old Court. I think it is very improbable that the new system will differ substantially from the old. Therefore, I think we should accept it, and in doing so we should not be doing anything wrong.

The Convention states that the General Assembly invites members of the Court at their first sitting to consider this question. The Statute has been framed, but there is no international Court——

The Court was elected in January and it has already met.

Have they responded to the invitation given to them by the General Assembly to consider this question?

They have sent in their report to the Secretary-General. He has not yet distributed it to member Governments, and we do not know what is in it.

Then we come to Subsection (2) where the General Assembly decides that the question of privileges and immunities of the Court shall be considered as soon as possible after receipt of the recommendations of the Court. We know that the recommendations have gone to the Secretary-General, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us that they have been sent to member Governments. They have not been considered by the General Assembly, which is a process to come, and yet the Government come down and, in advance of all these things, ask for the powers they require.

This is a combination of the desire of the Socialist Party to promote privilege wherever they can, coupled with the zeal to get hold of any kind of international machinery and to extol it to the highest degree. I do not think, as the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has said, that we could consider this matter at a later stage. It is not before us at all. It may take months before the Assembly receives these recommendations, and decides in what form they shall be applied. I want to ask the Minister of State a question about the degree of privilege which will be enjoyed by these judges at the International Court. It may help us to know what will be in the Order in Council. This is an institution at The Hague, and the Subsection mentions privileges given to judges and registrars of the International Court, but the Bill applies to this country and this country alone. Are these learned gentlemen to come over here? I understand that they will do nothing of the kind. They sit at The Hague, and do not go out on commissions of inquiry and investigation, travelling from country to country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reply to that point. Again, with regard to the suitors "to that Court, their agents, counsel and advocates." They may come to this country and pass through it, and no doubt we shall wish to extend certain privileges to them, but that every suitor to the International Court at The Hague should be granted privileges in this country, if he is not here on business, is a matter which requires a great deal of consideration. On those two counts, I do not think that the Government's decision, at the moment, is justified, and I hope that my hon. Friends will probe the Minister with further questions.

I cannot help feeling that this particular point boils down to singularly little. As the Minister of State has said, the Court will normally sit at The Hague, but, being master of its own procedure, it could, in some quite understandable emergency, sit in this country. What weighs with me is that the s League of Nations enjoyed diplomatic privileges analogous to those being sought by the United Nations organisation, and the Permanent Court of Justice enjoyed privileges and immunities analogous to those now being sought by the International Court of Justice. There has been no suggestion that the privileges accorded to the Permanent Court of Justice went unduly far. I do not know—I should like to ask the Minister—whether they want any further privileges than the general immunities and privileges accorded to the League of Nations. I know that the Permanent Court of Justice was a body which commanded very great respect, and which was certainly entitled to enjoy every privilege which was necessary to efficient work. Looking forward to the new International Court of Justice establishing itself in the same position, then, I submit, that it is a case in which we should not be niggardly, and make any bones at all, about giving all necessary privileges and immunities, which will go very little beyond, if they go beyond at all, the general privileges accorded by this Bill to the United Nations generally.

What the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Harris) has said is, I think, mainly true, that the International Court should be given the privileges which the United Nations decide should be given to them. It is also true that the area of Debate is in a very small compass, but it raises a point of constitutional importance. It is this: In certain countries treaties have the force of law, and, in those countries, unlike England, opportunities are given to the legislative assemblies of debating these treaties when ratified. In England; they do not have the force of law, and they have to be embodied in legislation. Therefore, when the treaty is executed, it is usually right and proper that the treaty should come before the House and be debated. In other words, the treaty is in a form to which legislation is designed to give effect. What is going to happen in this case—in a small area, admit—is that when the Convention, to which we are going to be parties, agree that certain privileges are to be bestowed on the International Court of Justice, Parliament will be unable to debate them, except in one form. The necessary Order in Council will come before this House, and if, within the 40 days in which it lies, it is not objected to, it will pass into law. In my submission, that is not the right way to legislate in matters of this kind. It is all right in the internal affairs of the nation to give the Government, in some instances, not a blank cheque, but a limited cheque, whereby they have to carry out a policy by Orders in Council, but, in the case of international legislation, it is not right to give the Government what the right hon. Gentleman has called a "blank cheque." I think that he did himself less than justice, because it is not even as bad as that. It is a blank cheque which has a limitation upon it. The right hon. Gentleman did not mean a "small blank cheque," because obviously one cannot have a small, unlimited blank cheque; if it is a blank cheque it is open to £1million: He meant that it was a blank cheque with a limitation upon it. It seems to be wrong in principle that for legislation required by international treaty, there should not be an opportunity of debate in this House. I would not object to what is called a positive Resolution—that seems to be another alternative—but it seems wrong to me to do it by a negative Resolution, because the House is then deprived of the opportunity of debating the implications of the international obligations. I think that is a constitutional point which does emerge, although in a small compass, from this Debate.

No one would object to granting privileges and immunities for the International Court of Justice if we knew what were the recommendations of the Court. The Minister admits that he is asking the Committee to give him what he calls a "blank cheque" and which has now been described as a blank cheque with a limit upon it. The right hon. Gentleman's argument runs: It does not matter, because the amount involved is very small. He said that so far as this Committee is concerned it would probably be affected by no more than 0.5 per cent., because the seat of the Court of International Justice is in the Netherlands. I do not think it matters whether the amount is big or small; we are concerned with the principle. Where the principle of giving a blank cheque is concerned, the amount for which the cheque is given is quite immaterial. I do not think that we ought to be asked to give a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentleman, certainly not before the recommendations of the Court have been received, and, when the right hon. Gentleman came down to this House this morning, I doubt if he knew whether or not the recommendations from the Court had been received. I think that he admitted just now that he only discovered a few minutes ago that, in fact, the recommendations had been received, but that he did not know as yet what they contained. I do not think that is a sufficiently valid argument on which we should give him a blank cheque.

I am not at all sure about the smallness of the amount of this blank cheque. I have listened to a great deal of talk on this Amendment, with regard to privileges conferred on courts, and I have been very puzzled to know what privileges are referred to. In this Bill, we are dealing with diplomatic privileges and with the giving of privileges on the analogy of those given to ambassadors. We now come to another part of the Bill which deals with privileges to judges, registrars, solicitors, barristers, suitors, and all kinds of people connected with courts. Where is the analogy such as we had in the earlier part of the Bill in connection with diplomatic privilege? Take a High Court judge in this country. Surely, we are not proposing to give immunities and privileges to judges, barristers, solicitors and all the rest? What diplomatic privilege has one of His Majesty's judges in this country except in his own court, where he can commit murder, libel, and do all kinds of things without being proceeded against? But a judge walking along the street has no immunity from arrest, and so forth. Who are these suitors to this court on the Continent? They are to have immunities for passing through this country, but it seems that we are being asked to sign a very vague and unmentionable blank cheque. The cheque is as big as one can imagine, and I must urge the Minister to give us some idea what these privileges are which it is proposed to confer on suitors, counsel, barristers and solicitors who are merely going over to the other side of the water to take part in some case.

I think it will be generally agreed that the division between the two sides of the Committee on this matter is not very wide. If I may say so, it is more analogous to the Amendment which we discussed on Clause 1, when the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to meet us with an assurance which enabled us to withdraw our Amendment. Could he not give us some similar assurance on this matter which would allow an agreeable arrangement to be reached? Unfortunately, the point at issue is really this. I quite understand that a Department, knowing that this subject is going to come up soon, in the autumn, and expecting that some agreement will be reached, should take the opportunity in the summer, when a Bill is before Parliament, to include the authority to deal with it. It is much more convenient, of course, for Ministers and Departments to have that kind of proleptic authority than to have to come to Parliament for further authority. It is more practically convenient. I do not know whether it is more politically convenient. The Lord President of the Council, who is so seldom here and who always talks so much about the House of Commons, said that the more Bills which can be passed, the greater the merit for the party opposite. It is quite easy to pass a one-Clause Bill which would go to snake up the score on the scoreboard. Eight hundred such Bills could be passed in as many minutes.

2.45 p.m.

Of course, the Department does not like it and it means extra work for the draftsmen in an already hard worked Department. They would say, "We have got this Bill; let us slip in this extra bit. No one will notice it, and, when the time comes, we will bring out our Order in Council." It will be remembered that an Order in Council is not debated unless it is prayed against, and no one would want to pray against such an institution as a court of justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) suggested, if it is a positive resolution, then it is a different matter. We might just as well have a one-Clause Bill. When one has acted as gamekeeper or poacher, or whichever way one likes to look at it, one knows a little of the way in which these things happen. I think that my hon. Friend below the Gangway was right; there is not a very substantial difference. It is more than likely that what will be recommended by this document, when circulated and discussed in December, will be very like the privileges which have existed in the past. I understand that those privileges are carried on now under the law. It is not necessary for this Bill to be passed; they are operative under the existing law.

If the right hon. Gentleman turns to page 8 of the Convention, Article 2, paragraph 3, I believe he will find that the rules which have applied to the permanent court are now, in fact, being observed. Therefore, there is no need to pass this Bill. These people are receiving all the rights which they have enjoyed since the court was set up after the last war. It is only when some additional privilege is granted that it is necessary to take these powers further. The only point of this particular Subsection is to assure that, if the court asks for something more, the Government shall have the power to give it without coming back to Parliament.

May I make a suggestion? We have proceeded very agreeably in this Debate, except upon the matter of the time limit where we thought we ought to stand on our principle. It ought to be possible for us to agree on this minor point, at any rate. If the right hon. Gentleman would say, in effect, that, if it should prove that these recommendations as to additional privileges are very small, with the exception of a few minor changes, he would operate under the Order in Council, but that, if they should be substantial, and if the new code should vary from the existing code, he would bring them to the attention of the House and not issue his Order in Council? I think that my hon. Friends and I would feel that we would not wish to push the point too far. If the right hon. Gentleman could give us that kind of assurance, it would make a considerable difference to the view of my hon. Friends and myself on this matter.

I am much obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I will not answer in detail what other hon. Members have said. Broadly speaking, I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). The thing is bound to be very like the privileges granted to the old court, both as regards the judge, the registrar and his staff. The whole question between us is whether, on this matter, it is worth while having another Bill. I would gladly give the assurance that, if a big change is recommended by the Assembly, I will bring it before the House before an Order is made; I would, so to speak, present a draft Order for consideration by the House be- fore it was submitted to His Majesty. If, however, there is only a small change to be made, then, I suggest, we should proceed under this Bill. If that is agreeable to hon. Members, I am certainly prepared to make that assurance as formal as they desire.

I think I understand the right hon. Gentleman. If there is, I will not say a perceptible, but a considerable, difference in the practice desired in future as compared with the previous practice, he will see that the legislative process is again begun. Short of that case, he will use the powers he is now asking the House to give him. In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I think I ought to make this quite clear. The hon. Member spoke of the legislative process being begun. What I said in reply to the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) was that I would bring the substance of any major change, if such there were, before the House before we made an Order—not before I made a new Bill.