Embassies should see cars clamped for congestion charge debts
Responding, Foreign Office minister Baroness Chapman of Darlington described diplomacy as 'an art'.
She said the fee for driving in inner London was a 'charge' rather than a tax, which embassies should pay.
According to Transport for London, the US embassy based south of the River in Nine Elms owes almost £15.5 million in congestion charge debts.
The Japanese mission faces debts of more than £10.6 million, while the Chinese embassy racked up a £10.3 million debt between 2003 and March 31 2025.
Lord Purvis referred to a diplomatic reception held at the Foreign Office in central London and asked: 'Should we not start instituting a drop-off and collection fee at King Charles Street just as long as we get our money back?'
The Liberal Democrat also said Mr Trump 'would certainly not want a reputation of not paying fines' and said: 'When he comes for the state visit, can we ensure that this is part of the agenda so that there's no congestion in the city of London from the American delegation and they pay us what they owe?'
Baroness Chapman replied that there was a 'whole range of measures' open to the Government, and that she would 'take on board' the one which Lord Purvis suggested.
'Others include encouraging the use perhaps of public transport or 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,' the minister added.
Former London Assembly Labour leader Lord Harris of Haringey asked: 'Would it, for example, be possible to clamp the cars that have done this, because I suspect that might concentrate the minds?'
Following him, the Green Party's Baroness Jones said: 'This has been going on ever since the congestion charge first came in.
'They've racked up these debts and I love Lord Harris's idea – we should clamp them all.
'We have a record of which cars have infringed the congestion charge. We clamp them all.'
Baroness Chapman told peers: 'All I would say is that diplomacy is an art and it comes more naturally to some than to others perhaps.'
She added: 'I think it's right that we don't escalate this issue above some of our very real concerns around security and defence and trade that we seek to work very closely with our counterparts on.'
Their exchanges were triggered by a question from Labour peer Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who asked about Government efforts to claw back unpaid business rates, parking fines and London congestion charges in April and May.
Baroness Chapman said that the Government had received 31 responses to the exercise earlier this year.
'Some agreed to settle debts, other disputed charges, and some refused to pay the London congestion charge claiming exemption under the Vienna Convention,' the minister said.
'FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) action since April 3 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.'
To laughter, Conservative shadow foreign office minister Lord Callanan said: 'I think there is unity across the House on this one.
'I think we're 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 from the actions of the secret service.
'But it is of course that conduct of diplomatic staff is a reflection of important values, respect, dignity and mutual recognition between nations, so following on from the reply that she gave to the Liberal Democrats, will (Baroness Chapman) consider linking future privileges or engagement opportunities to the good standing of diplomatic missions in their civic responsibilities, so as to encourage greater accountability?'
The minister said she would keep the situation 'under close consideration'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's delusional if he thinks his morally bankrupt plan to let 16-year-olds vote will help him out. They'll NEVER vote for him
It goes without saying that the Government's move to hand the vote to 16-year-olds is intellectually and morally bankrupt. You can determine the legal speed limit. But you aren't actually deemed mature enough to get behind the wheel yourself. You can endorse sending British troops off to fight in a foreign war. But you're not perceived to have sufficient discipline or self-control to join them. You can't be trusted to buy alcohol, get married or own a credit card. But you can help determine the political direction of Britain for half a decade. To be fair, nobody ever seriously pretended there was some great civic imperative behind the change. Angela Rayner made a half-decent fist of it when she claimed: 'For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline. We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy.'
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
I'm against votes at 16, but this is how I could be persuaded
If I were making the case for votes at 16, I would say that taking part in democracy is so important that people should be encouraged to do it early. I would say that voting is different from other things that people do, and that taking part can help to prepare young people for the responsibilities of citizenship. Instead, we tend to get a lot of false arguments about the other things that 16-year-olds can do and a rhetorical question: why shouldn't they be allowed to vote too? Thus on Thursday, when Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, published the government's plan to reduce the voting age, she said that '16- and 17-year-olds can work, pay tax and serve in the military'. Each of those actually undermines her case. They can work, but 14-year-olds can work part-time and it is government policy that 16- and 17-year-olds should be in education or training. You can pay income tax at any age. And though you can join the armed forces, you may not serve in a combat role. In an article in The Times, Rayner went further and said that you can be married at 16. Like most people, she was unaware that the law in England and Wales was changed two years ago, raising the age to 18. The article was quietly corrected. That mistake is the problem in a nutshell. At a time when age thresholds are generally being raised, advocates of votes at 16 have to explain why voting is different from most other things, not why it is the same. In recent years, the age at which young people can get a tattoo or buy superglue, fireworks or cigarettes has been raised to 18. The question is: why should voting be in the smaller category of things you can do at 16 rather than in the larger category of things that adults are allowed to do? I think that voting should be part of adulthood, but I don't feel strongly about it, and I could be persuaded that a special case should be made for a lower age, as it is for sex, medical treatment and driving. But the advocates of child voting really need to up their game. To be fair, Rayner did also make the better argument on Thursday: 'By engaging voters early, when they are young, and allowing them to have a say in shaping their future, we will build the foundations for their lifelong participation in our electoral processes.' There is some evidence for this. A Scottish study found that after the voting age was reduced for everything except UK parliament elections, that cohort 'continued to turn out in higher numbers, even into their twenties, than young people who attained the right to vote later, at age 18'. There are other ways of raising turnout. I am opposed to compulsory voting in principle – part of the point of voting is that it is a voluntary act – but I think that a small cash incentive for first-time voters is a good idea. Other studies have shown that 'voting in one election substantially increases the likelihood of voting in the future'. And if a lower voting age does have a lasting effect in increasing engagement then there is no harm in doing that too. My other objection to votes at 16, however, is the suspicion that it is being done for party advantage. That was plainly the case in Scotland, where David Cameron foolishly allowed Alex Salmond to expand the franchise in order to boost the separatist vote in the 2014 referendum. Cameron's strategy seemed plausible: let the Scottish National Party choose the franchise, the date and the question, and then there could be no argument about the result. Like as if. Equally, Rayner's high-sounding arguments of principle are undermined by the knowledge that there are votes in it for her. The effects of the change are likely to be small. One poll this month, by Focaldata, suggested Labour and the Greens would gain 0.2 percentage points each, at the expense of Reform, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. But it still stinks. Yes, it was in Labour's manifesto last year, which even used the good argument rather than the bad: 'We will increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy, by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.' That is the correct procedure in a parliamentary democracy: you put it in the manifesto, get elected and enact it in law. But there is an argument that constitutional questions should be treated differently: that is why we had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011. And Labour ought to worry that in one list of manifesto policies polled it was the only one that more people opposed than supported. That is the clincher for me. I am persuaded that it is good for young people to be engaged in politics. I could accept that Labour is entitled to act in its self-interest, having won a mandate for that explicit policy in the general election, if there was overwhelming support for it. But there is not, not even among 16- and 17-year-olds. So, I realise that it is going to happen, and that it won't be reversed once it has happened, but I wish Labour would drop the nonsense about serving in the military and make a better case of democratic principle.
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Chaos and fear as Afghans exposed in huge data breach left in limbo by UK
When the email from the Ministry of Defence dropped into his inbox, Qargha's heart leapt. After an agonising four-year wait, he hoped that this would finally be confirmation that he could escape the threat of the Taliban and be brought to safety in the UK. Instead, it was news that the government had exposed his personal information – and kept him in the dark about it for nearly two years. Already in fear for his life, he will now take extra precautions even when going for a walk or shopping. He is one of around 18,700 Afghans whose names and contact details were exposed in the catastrophic data leak, which happened when an MoD official emailed a secret database to trusted contacts in February 2022. The blunder, which has resulted in some 16,000 Afghans affected by the breach being relocated to Britain as part of a covert operation, was discovered after someone posted parts of the database online in August 2023. News of the breach prompted the government to use an unprecedented superinjunction to keep the breach a secret in an attempt to block further spread of the information, meaning that even those affected could not be told. Ministers had argued that 100,000 people's lives were at risk of Taliban reprisals if news of the data breach got out, but a government-commissioned review later concluded that being identified on the dataset was unlikely to constitute sole grounds for targeting. Just before the gagging order was finally lifted on Tuesday, the MoD scrambled to email tens of thousands of Afghans, warning them their data was compromised. Desperate for news that MoD caseworkers had finally made a decision on his case, Qargha, a former member of the Afghan security forces who is still in Afghanistan, thought the email would finally confirm his eligibility approval. But he was shocked when he discovered the truth. He told The Independent: ' I am very concerned about the leak of my personal information and I understood more about it from Afghan International TV as well. They said this leak will put many lives at risk. 'My day-to-day life will be harder now. I am living in a safe house and I know that today or tomorrow, if I need to go to the hospital or seek help for anything, I will have to be more cautious now. I am putting restrictions on myself – being more cautious about going shopping, going for a walk, going to the park or going for a haircut'. The former soldier applied for sanctuary in the UK in 2021, but he was rejected along with many members of former Afghan specialist units in the summer of 2023. During that time, one UK special forces liaison officer oversaw the blanket rejection of 1,585 such applications. Qargha is waiting on a review of that decision, and the years of limbo are taking their toll as his agonising wait continues. 'My old home has already been raided twice. It is impacting me mentally, having to wait for so long. Everyone knows us and the work we did against the Taliban before the takeover, so my life is hard, stress level is up, everything is up,' he said. One former member of the Afghan special forces unit, ATF444, who served alongside the British yet left behind after the withdrawal, is also still waiting for a review of his application for help. Akthar said that after he received the two alert emails from the MoD, he had 'a lot of questions'. 'I don't understand, this is not a third-world country. This is the UK, where access to technology is high. How have they managed to leak this information?', he told The Independent. 'We are already at risk and they have put us at more risk. There are lots of questions but what can we do about it - nothing. 'Whatever caution we were taking before, we should triple that caution. At this moment, the fear is like hell. 'My moving around has become restricted a lot. Before, if I was taking 50 per cent precaution for my safety, I need to make sure I'm doing it 100 per cent,' he added. Last week, Taliban members began doing door-to-door raids of the district he was in, so he jumped in a car with a friend and drove for 12 hours to a different province, he said. He also needs to try to work to get money to support members of his family. 'It's making me desperate,' he said, adding: 'My family has not done anything to anybody and they don't deserve to die'. Another former member of the Afghan security forces said his 'stress changed to depression' on receiving the bright red warning message, alerting him that his information had been breached. 'My stress level is very high, all I can do is wait for my application to be processed,' he said. The Independent revealed on Wednesday that hundreds of Afghan special forces soldiers had had their details leaked in the MoD breach. Some 18,500 people affected by the leak have been brought to the UK or are on their way, while 5,400 have received approval letters but still need to be evacuated. Ministers have said that, while the MoD's resettlement scheme (Arap) has been closed to new applicants, existing cases will still be processed. But no time frame for the evacuations has been given, leaving those affected in limbo. An MoD spokesperson said: 'We will not comment on individual cases. 'This Government is fully committed to delivering on the pledge made by Parliament to those in Afghanistan who are eligible to relocate and resettle. 'We aim to see through our commitment to those eligible under the ARP to its completion by the end of the parliament. Eligible Afghans and their families will continue to arrive in the UK for the foreseeable future.'
