§ Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Lord Privy Seal what procedure is adopted by Her Majesty's diplomatic missions abroad when a person enjoying diplomatic 61W immunity incurs the equivalent of British fixed penalty notices.
§ Mr. HurdUnder our usual practice, the officer concerned would be expected to meet a fixed penalty fine himself or, if he disputed the offence, to challenge the penalty in the local courts or in any other way provided for under the local system. Exceptions would be where the head of mission is satisfied that the offence to which the penalty relates was genuinely and necessarily committed in the course of, or in furtherance of, the officer's official duties, or where there is evidence of harassment, when the officer's diplomatic immunity may be maintained.
§ Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Lord Privy Seal how many criminal offences, by offenders, were alleged to have been committed by British diplomats working abroad and enjoying diplomatic immunity in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and so far in 1980; in which countries they were serving; and what happens to the alleged offender.
§ Mr. HurdThis information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
§ Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Lord Privy Seal what happens to a British diplomat abroad and enjoying diplomatic immunity when he is alleged to have committed a criminal offence.
§ Mr. HurdArticle 41 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations provides that, without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. If those laws and regulations are allegedly infringed by any of the staff of a British diplomatic mission abroad, the question arises whether their immunity should be maintained or whether it should be waived. As a matter of principle, we would not expect personal diplomatic immunity to be unreasonably maintained in cases where waiver would not prejudice the work of the mission; but in most circumstances immunity in respect of official acts will be maintained. Any case in which a member of the staff of one of our missions was accused of a criminal offence would be considered within the framework of this general policy.
§ Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Lord Privy Seal how many diplomats enjoying diplo- 62W matic immunity he asked to be recalled in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and so far in 1980; and to which mission they were accredited.
§ Mr. HurdAs I said in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on 6 June, such matters are firmly dealt with.—[Vol. 985, c. 860.] Details of exchanges with missions about allegations of criminal offences by members of their staffs entitled to diplomatic immunity are confidential. Often in such cases the person concerned is withdrawn before we make any formal request for withdrawal.
§ Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Lord Privy Seal if those persons enjoying diplomatic immunity who were alleged to have committed offences of violence against the person, sexual offences and drug offences in 1979 were allowed to remain in the United Kingdom; and, if so, which ones and why.
§ Mr. HurdIn no case was the alleged offence such as to make the removal of the accused person the right course of action. Where appropriate, representations were made to the missions concerned and satisfactory action was taken by them.