Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Charges

Question

15:29:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what responses they have received to the letters sent by the Protocol Directorate of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in April and May to diplomatic missions and international organisations about unpaid non-domestic rates, parking fines and London Congestion Charges.

My Lords, of 31 responses received, some agreed to settle debts, others disputed charges and some refused to pay the London congestion charge, claiming exemption under the Vienna convention. FCDO action since 3 April 2025 has helped reduce national non-domestic rates debt by £287,142, car parking fines debt by £7,035 and London congestion charge debt by £7,430. Further details will be published in a Written Ministerial Statement later this year.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and for the letters she wrote to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, who I am pleased to see in his place, after he and I raised the scandal of unpaid debts and fines by diplomatic missions in the UK in Questions on 13 May. Despite the encouraging figures which she has produced, the scale of the debts is still staggering. As of a year ago, the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, for example, owed £196,630 in parking fines, China owed over £646,000 in unpaid national non-domestic rates, and the US embassy owed over £15 million in unpaid congestion charges. Will my noble friend confirm that the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires all diplomats to pay all charges, taxes and fines for which they are liable, and that that includes the congestion charge?

My noble friend is right, and it is the Government’s position, consistent with that of the previous Government, that these are charges, not taxes, and should be paid.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply to me and to the noble Lord a week or so ago. If you add unpaid parking fines to the £150 million owed in congestion charges, the figure goes up to nearly £300 million, which is a staggering amount; that could be put to transformational use by TfL. Is the Minister aware that when the current Labour Mayor was elected 10 years ago, he said that he would make this a key priority? Does she agree that it is time for him to help her and the Government get a grip?

I detect some co-ordination across the House this afternoon. We consider these to be debts, and we would like them to be paid. Like TfL and the Mayor of London, we continue to use our diplomatic best efforts to bring that about.

My Lords, one of the highlights of the diplomatic calendar in London is the Foreign Office diplomatic reception. Given that many of those attending will be those who have refused to pay, should we not start instituting a drop-off and collection fee at King Charles Street, just until we get our money back? Given that, as the noble Lord said, the United States is possibly the biggest offender and that President Trump would certainly not want a reputation of not paying fines, when he comes for the state visit, can we ensure that this is part of the agenda, so that there is no congestion in the city of London from the American delegation and they pay us what they owe?

There are a whole range of measures that we can consider, and I certainly take on board the one that the noble Lord has mentioned. Others include encouraging the use of public transport, cycling or walking around our wonderful city. But he suggests that we raise these matters directly with our counterparts and I can assure him that we do just that.

On that point, is it the Government’s position that when President Trump comes on his state visit, he should personally have to pay the congestion charge when he travels around in his rather heavy vehicle?

My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble friend for his wit and the charm with which he brings his points to this Chamber. I will leave the finer points of the arrangements for the visit of President Trump to the relevant officials in the Foreign Office.

My Lords, I think there is unity across the House on this one. We are all amused by the prospect of some poor parking warden having to put a ticket on President Trump’s limousine and what might happen to him following the actions of the Secret Service. The conduct of diplomatic staff is a reflection of important values: respect, dignity and mutual recognition between nations. Following on from the reply the Minister gave to the Liberal Democrats, will she consider linking future privileges or engagement opportunities to the good standing of diplomatic missions in their civic responsibilities, so as to encourage greater accountability?

We keep these things under close consideration but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said when he addressed this issue during the very last Question of the last Parliament—his last appearance on this side of the House—our diplomats are the best in the world and we entrust them to raise these issues as appropriate. We are starting to see some, I admit small, contributions towards meeting this debt and I think that is the right approach for now.

My Lords, it is tempting to suggest that when the American President arrives, we call them not charges but tariffs, as that seems to be a word he finds much more popular. More seriously, can the Minister assure us that, at the same time as we are trying to crack down on diplomats in this country, British diplomats and their staff overseas are correctly paying all fines, charges and other tariffs that they are supposed to pay?

I am happy to confirm that. As the right reverend Prelate would expect, our diplomatic staff, wherever they are stationed around the world, act to the highest of standards.

My Lords, does the diplomatic immunity that the various embassies claim apply to enforcement action? Would it, for example, be possible to clamp the cars that have done this? I suspect that that might concentrate minds.

As I have said, there are a range of options available. It has been suggested that we impound diplomatic vehicles—seize them and prevent them being used—and other such measures have been suggested. But for the time being, we continue to raise these issues directly with missions in this country and we think that is the best approach for now.

My Lords, I am so sorry but that is far too much patience. This has been going on ever since the congestion charge first came in. They have racked up these debts, and I love the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Harris: we have a record of which cars have infringed the congestion charge—we should clamp them all.

All I would say is that diplomacy is an art, and it comes more naturally to some than to others, perhaps. We keep this under consideration, but I think it is right that we do not escalate this issue above some of our very real concerns around security, defence and trade that we seek to work very closely with our counterparts on.