PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 1 TO 4 AND SCHEDULE 1 (Hansard, 26 July 1974)

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 9, line 39, leave out and used'.

§ The Chairman
With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5.

§ Mr. Lyon
I think that I can deal with these matters very briefly. These are technical amendments that arise out of the definition of "owner" that is at present contained in the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations of 1971. I do not think that I need explain the technicalities to the Committee, but there will have to be a change of the system when there is a centralisation of vehicle registration records at Swansea on 1st October of this year. As a result, it is 1992 desired to change the definition so that the matter can be dealt with under the computerised records. That is the only purpose of the amendments. There will be no change in the practical effect.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)
I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 10, line 15, at end insert— '(5A) Where the person on whom a notice under section 1(6) or section 2(6) above is to be served is a person who subsequently or at the time claims diplomatic immunity, this fact shall be notified to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office forthwith'. I understand that in the Metropolitan Police District, in the last year for which records are available, there were about 600,000 offences involving notices of the sort dealt with in the clause, of which about 60,000 were unservable or returned because the person who committed the offence claimed diplomatic immunity.
We have seen in London an increasing disregard by the diplomatic community, with some notable exceptions, of the road traffic laws of this country. I appreciate that diplomatic immunity is conferred under the Vienna Convention. None the less, instructions go out regularly from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to our diplomats abroad to ensure that they comply with the laws of the land which receives them and, if I may put it this way, in which country they are meant to be our representatives and a credit to us. Any diplomat who continually offends the laws of this country is bringing discredit upon his country. It may be that the countries concerned do not know the diplomats who are constantly offending our laws, and I want to make certain that this matter is brought to their attention.
1993 The only way in which it seems possible to do that is for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be notified on each occasion when such immunity is claimed. It would be difficult to put into the Bill what the Foreign Office should do, but one would hope that on receipt of such notification it would notify the ambassador or the high commissioner that there was a constant flouting of British traffic laws by one or more of their diplomats.
11.15 a.m.
I am certain the Minister will say that the amendment is technically defective. I accept that, but last night we passed a Bill which it was said was defective but which will soon become the law of the land. This is the constraint under which we operate. If the Minister is able to say that he takes the point and will undertake to consider it, and if he does not feel like putting this in the Bill but says that he might by administrative action achieve the same object, I shall be perfectly happy.

§ Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has done a service by introducing this amendment. The flouting of our parking and traffic regulations by some members of the diplomatic corps is a nuisance in London, but we know from experience in other capital cities—and I am thinking particularly of Washington and Paris—that it can in time become a menace, and I suspect that the situation in this country will get worse, because if the GLC persists in its unfortunate police policy of harassing the private driver more summonses will be served on diplomatic car drivers and the proportion of offences committed by the diplomatic corps will, if anything, increase.
My hon. Friend wants notification to be made to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I hope that that can be done. I hope, too, that when notification is made the Foreign Office will, as a matter of regular form, publish lists of those embassies that are most persistent in offending in this way, because it is only by adverse publicity that one will get embassies to check on the members of their staff who are flouting the regulations. I further hope that if some embassies persistently take no action some way can be found of limiting the 1994 number of their vehicles that have diplomatic immunity.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
The Amendment is not only technically defective, but unnecessary. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) wants the police, the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to inform embassies of these breaches on a regular basis. That is already done. Every month each embassy is given a list of the cars that have been the subject of these fixed penalty tickets, so the matter is already dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the only sanction that we have in this matter is adverse publicity, and there has been adverse publicity over the last few years about this whole matter. Figures have been published in HANSARD in reply to Written Questions about the embassies with the greatest number of fixed penalties awarded to them. All I can say is that, judging by the figures, there seems to have been some improvement at least in the record of some of the worst embassies. Perhaps the matter could best be dealt with on that basis.

§ Mr. Finsberg
Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to consider taking the matter a little further so that, apart from just distributing the figures to each embassy, if there were constant breaches he would draw an embassy's attention specifically to that, and ask what action that embassy would take?

§ Mr. Lyon
That is hardly a matter for a Home Office Minister. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might care to take it up with the Foreign Office. As I understand the position—I speak here only from the standpoint of my departmental responsibility—the Foreign Office draws the matter to the attention of embassies.

§ Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has raised an important matter, and he seeks by his amendment to bring about effective action. The Minister tells us that there is already a system by which embassies are notified of offences, but I urge upon him that there is a strong case for delving further into this matter to find out what 1995 other countries do. I realise that this is not covered by the amendment, but we should like to know what steps are taken by other countries faced with a similar problem.
What international efforts could be made, with the emphasis on transport rather than on diplomatic approaches, to point out that this is becoming extremely offensive in over-crowded cities such as London, and that the diplomatic corps is gaining an increasingly bad reputation for flouting the law?

§ Mr. Lyon
I do not think that it could be approached on that basis. There is diplomatic immunity, and if a diplomat commits an offence he cannot be brought before the courts. That is part of the international convention, and we have to respond for our part because there is reciprocity in relation to our diplomats elsewhere. Therefore, it cannot be done on the basis of treating certain vehicles in different ways because they are diplomats' vehicles.
The only way is by the pressure of public opinion and the pressure of out own Foreign Office in relation to those embassies which offend most. I have no doubt that this debate will be noted and will play its small part in that pressure. Equally, I shall draw the attention of Foreign Office Ministers to the views which have been expressed in the Committee today.

§ Mr. Finsberg
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.