Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it does tend to be the larger missions which do not pay, and it is certainly true that they appear to have no difficulty in paying the charges in Singapore and Oslo. The value of outstanding parking fines at the time that this brief was drafted was £354,860. In the case of the congestion charge, the top 10 offenders owed £1,909,700. The overall amount owed at that time was around £2.9 million.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is not the first time that this problem has arisen? In 1984, we faced it very directly as well as in the context of the outrage of the shooting from the Libyan Embassy. After examination by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, we concluded that parking offenders should also be declared persona non grata where necessary. Thereby, the figures were reduced from 109,000 cases in 1984 to less than 8,000 in 1989. Would the Minister be wise enough to follow that example?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I know that this is not the first time the matter has arisen or that a Question has been asked in the House. It is certainly true that those steps were taken following the FAC report. There was also a White Paper covering these matters in 1985. We are doing our best to ensure that everybody understands that they must comply with the laws—we expect them to do so—and that there are, in the final analysis, penalties that we can deploy. However, I expect that the House would be cautious before it saw all car-driving diplomats from all our major allies expelled from the United Kingdom at the same time.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, it is anathema to law-abiding motorists to see these people getting away with not paying their fines or congestion charges and parking in the wrong place. Is it not time to get rid of the diplomatic niceties and allow such cars to be
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1061
 
clamped? That would send a message to diplomats in their big fat cars that they must obey the law like everyone else.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Triesman: My Lords, my noble friend has made a proposition that is very tempting to the House, as I could hear from the response. I will bear it in mind, but I hope that the House will also allow me to try to keep at least some semblance of an international policy in relation to this.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in how many foreign capitals do British diplomats have to pay similar charges and roughly how much per year does that amount to?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, of course we pay—that goes without saying. There are two other congestion charge areas: Singapore and Oslo. Parking fines can be attracted in the majority of cities in modern nations where there are parking regulations, although not everywhere in the world, and our policy is to meet our obligations and not to avoid them.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, why do diplomatic travellers manage to comply with the laws in Oslo and not in this country?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, that is a good question, and I have put it myself. There does not appear to be a complete willingness to answer it in terms, but I should love to answer it in the House. I speculate here a bit, but it is conceivable that the number of cars in Oslo, for example, even for a quite big mission, is relatively small, whereas the number of cars for a very large mission in the United Kingdom is quite large. But it may also reflect the relative wealth of the nations and their ability to pay.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—

Lord Cobbold: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, would it not be possible to negotiate a fixed charge for each mission to cover all its vehicle movements in the area?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, leaving behind parking fines, which are accumulated as people break parking laws, a fixed sum in respect of congestion charges would require the consent of the authorities in London. That was discussed with the authorities in London, but they were not prepared to have any variation in any of the charging arrangements. I suspect that some noble Lords might have
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1062
 
complained about that themselves. That is what would be needed to change the congestion charging arrangements for London.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, could the Minister clear up the question whether the congestion charge is a charge or a tax? Is he aware that many embassies take the view that it is a tax and that, under the Vienna Convention, embassies are free from tax? There is considerable confusion on the matter. How are the Government going to resolve it?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we have resolved it, as the noble Lord will be happy to hear. The question has been put to the Treasury, which answered it in completely robust terms having taken appropriate legal advice. I understand that, among lawyers, there is sometimes a difference of view about all the facts in the matter, but we have taken the view that this is not a tax but is akin to a toll or to other kinds of charges that are not in the nature of taxes and therefore cannot be avoided. That is our position, and we have told all diplomatic missions that.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I regret to say that we have had 15 minutes.

Rural Payments Agency

2.51 pm

Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:

How well prepared the Rural Payments Agency is for ensuring that single farm payments will be made at the end of February.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Rural Payments Agency announced in January 2005 that it expected to make payments in February 2006. The agency remains on track to commence payments in February and to complete the bulk of payments in March, in line with its target of completing 96 per cent of payments by value by the end of March. Payments will start in February, even if that involves making a substantial partial payment, although my clear preference is to make payments in full, and I expect to do that.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but how does he square up the criticism given by the EFRA Select Committee, which accused the agency of complacency? The amounts should have been paid in full, but the Minister has just said that the bulk of them will be paid, so even he is accepting that they will not be paid in full. Will he tell us, despite an £18 million overspend, what proportion of the assessments have so far been completed? Of the
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1063
 
payments due to start in February and be completed by the end of March, is there is a contingency plan for those that will be not met?

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Select Committee from another place, I do not believe that it has done itself justice in its report. The committee misquotes me three times. I do not mind that, but I object to being called complacent, not so much on my own behalf but on the behalf of those in my department and the Rural Payments Agency who are working night and day to ensure that farmers get their payments in February and March of this year.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I do not doubt that the Minister's staff are working extremely hard, but I am sure that he is aware that 80 per cent of the single farm payments were paid to Welsh farmers before Christmas, 62 per cent to Scottish farmers and 75 per cent to farmers in Northern Ireland. Why is it that farmers in England are not going to be paid even in this month and will have to wait until February? I am sure that he will also recognise that the EFRA Select Committee report that came out last week is an all-party report, and its general conclusion is:

It asked Ministers to give a definitive announcement on that. Although he has made some promises, the findings of the committee do not give us a lot of confidence.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the report claimed that I had given no definitive date for when payments would start. Today I have given the House a definitive date, and I gave the EFRA Select Committee a definitive date. I do not know what more I could have done. England is not Wales. Does the noble Lord agree with that? He may even be pleased about it. Does he accept that there are many more farmers in England than there are even in Wales? Wales decided on a historic element of paying, while we decided on a more sophisticated way of paying that is more in keeping with the CAP reform that the House so supports; at least it seems to support the CAP reform when the idea is put forward but it does not seem so keen on the implementation.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page