Traffic Management Bill

Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2004.

Standing Committee A

Clause 68 - Civil penalties for road traffic contraventions

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I beg to move amendment No. 196, in

page 41, line 8, leave out 'of criminal proceedings or'.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 50, in

page 41, line 9, at end insert—

'(3A) The regulations shall include provision in respect of challenges to penalty notices and shall provide that such a challenge may be made immediately the notice has been received.'.

No. 129, in

page 41, line 10, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 130, in

page 41, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 131, in

page 41, line 17, at end add—

'(6) The regulations shall include provision that a penalty charge shall not be imposed in respect of any description of conduct in which there is a reasonable excuse having regard to the circumstances at the time.'.

No. 132, in

page 41, line 17, at end add—

'(7) The regulations shall include provision for a standard compensation payment to be made in respect of penalty charge notices which are withdrawn or successfully appealed.'.

No. 133, in

page 41, line 17, at end add—

'(8) The regulations shall include provision for penalty charges to be proportionate to the gravity of the contravention having regard to the duration of the contravention and its impact upon the safety and convenience of other road users.'.

No. 134, in

page 41, line 17, at end add—

'(9) Regulations under this Part of the Act shall require a local authority exercising civil enforcement powers to publish an annual report within six months of the end of each financial year setting out penalty income received and details of the number of appeals and representations received and their outcome.'.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Good morning, Mr. Beard.

I tabled the amendment partly as a probing amendment but also because of a major weakness in current legislation relating to car parking. The Road Traffic Act 1991 decriminalised parking offences and brought them within the civil enforcement system, and the clause seems to continue that. I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Government intend to continue to move towards civil rather than criminal enforcement and say whether he believes that the clause will worsen or improve the situation.

Under section 35A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local authorities can contract out the management of off-road parking to private car parking firms. However, there is no provision in the Act for a local authority agent to take action on the local authority's behalf. While the Act refers specifically—for example, in section 33(7)—to the use of agents to manage a car-parking facility, it does not authorise a third party to pursue action through the criminal justice system.

Throughout the country there is an anomaly. It is an anomaly that needs to be removed and one that neither the Government nor the House of Commons want to see in part 6 of the Bill. Where a local authority car park is run by the local authority, the situation is straightforward: the parking adjudicator has some authority. Where it is run by a private operator, the private operator is taking people to criminal courts to raise revenue, revenue that goes, to judge from most of the contracts that I have seen, entirely to the private operator.

The use of the criminal law by a private operator is an anomaly. A private operator of a private car park can use civil law only, and thereby pursue a civil debt. In accordance with the principles of civil penalties for road traffic contraventions in existing law and in part 6 of the Bill, the notion that such disputes should be civil disputes is right and proper. One who objects to the facts of the situation can go before a county court, with no criminal impunity possible, and argue one's case, and the issue can be resolved in the normal manner in the civil courts. However, the anomaly with local authority car parks that are under private subcontracted operation is that the private operators are using criminal law in the same way as a local authority is empowered to do, rather than civil law. That puts pressure on the individual, because the threat of criminal action entices him to pay the sum demanded by the private operator.

It is an unreasonable and irrational anomaly. I seek the Minister's response to it and his assurance that the ability of private operators to use the criminal courts to enforce debt recovery will not be possible under the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

This group of amendments is fundamental. Opposition Members have tabled a series of amendments to lead the fight back on behalf of law-abiding middle Britain, which comprises motorists and other road users who are essentially honest, decent and law abiding, but who are being persecuted and oppressed by unreasonable men and women in grey uniforms, often motivated by their local authority employers' greed or their hatred for motorists.

The best way to introduce this group of amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends is to quote from a letter in the Evening Standard of Monday 2 February, written after the amendments had been tabled. The letter is headed ''War on Drivers'' and is from Iain MacMaster of Battersea Park road, London SW8, in the heart of the borough that I once had the privilege of leading. It reads:

''The original concept of imposing fines for illegal parking, with a view to improving traffic flow and local amenities, has long been forgotten by local councils, who regard it primarily as a money-raising exercise. Indeed, they rely on the money obtained to such an extent that it would be a matter of serious concern to them if everyone parked properly, and they lost the revenue from fines.

The desperation to obtain money from motorists results in fines that are totally disproportionate to the 'offence' committed, or its impact on other drivers and the general public. A low-paid worker who has to pay out a week's wages because his car has been towed away for a minor parking infringement (£175) is entitled to wonder why a passenger travelling on the underground without a ticket is only fined £10.

Also, aside from penalties, parking charges, set by local councils without any external control, are grossly excessive, and increase substantially beyond the rate of inflation, notwithstanding that the motorists paying them are only receiving cost-of-living pay rises.

As a legal consultant to a charity that assists the socially excluded and victims of miscarriage of justice''—

I hope that the Minister is listening to this—

''I have represented many motorists, justifiably disgruntled at the wrongful issue of parking tickets, at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. Several of these appeals have been held before Martin Wood, the senior adjudicator, whose scepticism concerning the competence of council parking enforcement officers . . . is well founded.

Mr. Wood, whose adjudications are, in my experience, scrupulously fair and based on a detailed application of the relevant law, is in an excellent position to identify local councils' ferocious efforts to obtain money from parking and other traffic infringements with no appreciation of reasonableness or justice.

The 'war' between the motorists and councils will continue for as long as the latter sees the former only as a source of funding.''

I think that it was the Prime Minister who said yesterday that he had not put his words as eloquently as one of his Back-Benchers who put a point to him. I do not believe that the points that we are making in support of this group of amendments can be put more eloquently than in that lead letter to the Evening Standard.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on an anomaly? Let us suppose that we were talking about a private operator of a local authority car park. One case brought to my attention was that of a woman with cystic fibrosis who was in a wheelchair. She was unable to park in the disabled parking slot because of the gradient and therefore parked in a non-disabled space on a zero per cent. gradient so that she could get out with her wheelchair. A ticket was planted on her oxygen container—while she was carrying it in her wheelchair, while visiting her doctor. She is not able to go to the parking adjudicator, and was threatened with criminal litigation by the private operator. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the anomalies involved when it comes to taking cases to the adjudicator?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The example that he cites is horrendous, but unfortunately it is not unique when we are talking about what happens in private car parks where the service has been contracted out. Such things also regularly happen on the streets, where the enforcement is under direct local authority control. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. One of the amendments in this group requires that enforcement be proportionate and reasonable. Local

authorities should certainly apply that criterion, both to offences committed on the highway and in private car parks.

Amendment No. 50 is a technical amendment. It arises from an issue brought to my attention by the AA. The amendment states that regulations shall provide that a challenge to a penalty notice

''may be made immediately the notice has been received.''

The existing rules prevent anybody appealing against an enforcement notice in the first 14 days. I am sure that that cannot have been the intention of the Government at the time. The existing rules mean that people lose the right to a discounted penalty.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Deliberately.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

As my right hon. Friend says, deliberately. The AA points out that that is oppressive. It could amount to extortion. It involves the threat of a much greater penalty, and inhibits people from taking complaints to the parking adjudicator or making representations to the enforcement authority.

Amendment No. 129 raises the issue of why a penalty charge should be imposed in circumstances other than those set out in subsection (4). It is a probing amendment. I would be grateful if the Minister would give some examples of what he has in mind. Amendment No. 130 would ensure proper provision for exemptions, discounts and surcharges, and would make that mandatory rather than discretionary.

More important than the relatively technical amendments is amendment No. 131, which would require that no penalty charge be imposed for

''any description of conduct in which there is a reasonable excuse having regard to the circumstances at the time.''

There are hosts of examples of unreasonable behaviour on the part of enforcement officials. Let us compare them with police officers. Even in respect of offences of strict liability, police officers exercise their discretion.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Would the hon. Gentleman regard the following as unreasonable? In car parks, there are two types of ticket-issuing machines. One has an internal heater, which keeps tickets dry in wet weather, the other does not. This means that if the machine is outside and it is raining, the ticket comes out damp. As the normal practice of the motorist is to put the ticket on the window, would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that in the Bawtry car park in south Yorkshire the majority of fines are issued to drivers who have bought tickets in wet weather, which have subsequently fallen off windscreens or windows owing to a design fault, whether deliberate or accidental, in the ticket machine?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I think that the example given by the hon. Gentleman is four-square with what I am describing. I am sure that every member of the Committee would be able to come up with a list of horrendous examples. I shall quote a few from my own experience. Where I live during the week, in Lambeth, a builder had a temporary permit that had been

obtained by a resident, enabling him to park in the residents' parking bay. The permit had to be filled in by the builder. He marked the date as 1 October, whereas it should have been 1 November—the month had just changed. It was an error on his part. As soon as he had parked his van there, it was towed away. He sought to protest, and the official said that his permit had been filled in for 1 October, rather than 1 November, although it was obvious that the permit had not been used before. I quote that as an example of unreasonable behaviour whereby, under the amendment, it would be possible for the person accused to have a proper defence.

Later in this part of the Bill we will consider the issue of box junctions, but in anticipation of the fact that it is the will of the Government that these fixed penalties should apply in relation to box junctions, I can only say that unless there are provisions allowing for a defence on the ground of reasonable excuse there will be an incredible amount of injustice relating to activity around box junctions. Every motorist realises that one can think that the exit from a box junction is clear, but can find that, as one progresses across the box junction, one can be cut up by another driver, who then occupies the space. The Minister seems to think that it is impossible for that situation to arise. I have had letters from people citing that.

Furthermore, the situation in very dense traffic in London is that sometimes vehicles wishing to turn left where there is a box junction will never be able to do so unless they start easing out across the box junction when the lights are green. Therefore, the most strict and rigid enforcement, without allowing motorists to have a defence of reasonable excuse, will cause an enormous amount of injustice.

We need to have a regime that enables common sense to be applied. Again, this is not happening in the enforcement of bus lanes. Rescue vehicles attending members who have broken down in bus lanes are finding that they, as well as the vehicles that have broken down, are being subjected to fixed penalty notices. This is wholly unreasonable, and under the current regime of fixed penalty notices there is no excuse—they are offences of strict liability and the fine has to be paid. If the police were responsible, they would use their common sense and discretion, in accordance with their responsibilities as police officers, and would not impose fixed penalty notices in such circumstances.

The same problems will arise if fixed penalty notices are extended in relation to breaches of traffic signs. In my driving experience in my residential area, delivery vans often block the highway in such a way that it is not possible to get out of the residential area without turning in breach of the traffic signs. If someone on the ground saw the circumstances, that would be a reasonable excuse, but it is proposed that an insensitive camera will automatically issue a penalty charge.

The clause and its notes refer to the need to ensure that traffic is kept flowing and to ensure that buses can use bus lanes so that they are not held up in the traffic

flow. However, bus lane cameras are being used to penalise motorists who cut into the bus lane when there are no buses in order to make a left-hand turn, which speeds up the flow of traffic and reduces congestion. People may also have to move into the bus lane because the other lane is obstructed, but they are regarded as being in breach of the strict liability rules relating to bus lanes.

People who drop disabled neighbours at their front door will find themselves penalised by fixed penalty notices. Under even the very stringent rules relating to drink driving there is a defence of special reasons, but that defence is not applicable in relation to the offences of strict liability. If we are going to increase the number of fixed penalty notices, I urge the Committee to accept that we have to introduce a defence of reasonable excuse.

Amendment No. 132 would introduce reciprocity in relation to the penalty charge regime. It provides that there should be compensation where penalty charge notices are withdrawn or successfully appealed against. I have been told by one motoring organisation that some London boroughs do not pursue a case if there is an appeal. When the motorist turns up in front of the adjudicator and finds that the matter is not going to be pursued by the local authority, he has wasted a significant amount of time in going through the process of an appeal. He has won his appeal, but he is not entitled to any compensation or costs to cover the expenses that he has incurred.

Amendment No. 133 is important because it would ensure that penalty charges are proportionate to the gravity of the contravention, and have regard to the duration of the contravention and its impact on the safety and convenience of other road users. As the Minister will know, one of the first principles of good regulation is proportionality. When the Road Traffic Act 1991 was introduced following detailed scrutiny in Committee, Parliament was addressing the problem of a lack of enforcement of parking restrictions. For example, where there was a limited waiting area, motorists would park there all day, thereby depriving others of the opportunity to stop outside shops. People found that they could not park anywhere near their houses because residential parking provisions were not being enforced. People found that main routes were congested because of unreasonable behaviour on the part of motorists. Lack of enforcement meant that red routes were introduced on the main routes into London and, following long negotiations with the Home Office, power was given to local authorities to take over parking enforcement in particular circumstances. The purpose was to try to make things fairer for residents and motorists alike and to ensure that unreasonable behaviour that caused congestion or resulted in parking places not being available when they should be was outlawed.

Since then, parking enforcement has become so rigid and inflexible that it is falling into disrepute. The Minister will know, because it came up in Transport questions this week, that if someone drives at 31 mph in a 30 mph zone, under the Association of Chief Police Officers' guidelines they are not prosecuted. However, if someone overstays on a parking meter by

one minute—and often the clocks are not accurate—they can find themselves with a penalty charge of £80. How can that be proportionate or reasonable?

There are many examples, and people in this Room have recent examples in which either they or their loved ones have overstayed on a parking meter for a minute and suffered a disproportionate penalty, or parked on a yellow line for a short time without causing obstruction and found their vehicle towed away, thereby incurring a £175 penalty. The other day, one of my colleagues in the other place cited an example of where, in the square where he lives in London, a parked car had its wheel slightly over the edge of the kerb. That vehicle was towed away. It was not causing an obstruction and was not across the pavement, but had one wheel slightly over the kerb. Strictly speaking, an offence was being committed, but a penalty of £175 had to be paid by the owner of that vehicle. That was totally disproportionate.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We are all aware of cases of over-zealous traffic wardens, but central to the hon. Gentleman's argument is the idea that fines should generally be lower. If fine income is to pay for enforcement, how would the hon. Gentleman pay for enforcement of traffic regulations if fine income is insufficient?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that it would be better to perpetrate injustice on the basis that it contributes revenue for the greater good. If the situation is such that there is so much compliance with parking law that the only enforcement has to be on people who have overstayed by a minute or two, we need fewer wardens than there are at the moment.

One problem is that wardens are often incentivised so that they get bonus payments related to the number of tickets that they issue. That is an obscene practice, but it is commonplace. If those wardens have nothing better to do because there are no other infringements, we need fewer wardens rather than more. There is an opportunity cost for our economy of having more people in those grey uniforms than is strictly necessary. I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee. It would reflect what would normally be regarded as best practice. It would counter the problem of little Hitlers. The problem of insensitive, authoritarian officialdom with no discretion and no flexibility has gone too far and the amendment provides a chance to rein back on that a little and put one over on the unimaginative, small-minded, jealous little Hitlers who delight in persecuting and humiliating vehicle users. I hope that the amendment appeals to the Committee.

Amendment No. 134 would require an annual report—not just any old annual report, but one requiring the local authority to provide specific information on penalty income, the number of appeals, the number of representations, and the outcome of those appeals and representations. That information would be illuminating for residents and businesses in local authority areas and for the wider public.

The amendments are important. They go to the heart of the balance between the duties and responsibilities of motorists to behave reasonably and the need for proportionate and reasonable enforcement on the part of those who are being given civil enforcement powers in lieu of the criminal powers of the police.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

The flaw in the argument made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is that not every case of traffic regulation infringement is a minor one such as a tyre being one inch outside a parking box. There are serious problems, and parking in completely inappropriate places must be deterred with action, including fine action. It is disingenuous to suggest that the problem is just one of people committing technical infringements that do no harm to anyone.

I welcome the Government's decision to decriminalise a range of offences because I think that that will make it easier for them to be enforced. The City of York, which I have the great pleasure to represent, has a large pedestrianised area and buses are allowed through certain parts to provide access for people without cars and with limited mobility. Those bus services are often delayed by 10, 15 or 20 minutes because of parking by people who should not be in the pedestrian area and when a service is delayed by that time, it becomes unattractive to the public. Such parking is not a priority for the police, which is probably correct, but is extremely costly for the local bus company and extremely inconvenient for the public.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Many cities find that the public do not like extensive pedestrianised areas in city centres. Town planners may like them, as may some anti-car councillors, but, by and large, the public like to drive to within a reasonable distance of the shops. The hon. Gentleman referred to York, the city he represents. I recall that recently a number of traders who were unhappy about the pedestrianised area got together and persuaded the local council to allow cars in during the evenings of late night shopping so that people could park their cars near the shops. Can he tell us why that experiment was carried out if pedestrianisation is so popular?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

When the council first proposed pedestrianisation it was vociferously opposed by most of the city centre traders, who took the view that their business would decline and people would be driven to out-of-town shopping. If the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) comes to my constituency at any shopping time, including the evenings, but especially during normal nine-to-five shopping hours, he will see people walking down the main shopping street—Coney street—which used to have traffic in it but is now wall-to-wall pedestrians. Many more people come to the centre of York and many more people buy things in the shops as a result of pedestrianisation. Looking back, the chamber of commerce and the chamber of trade in York see it as a major improvement. That does not mean that one cannot fine tune the scheme. The council does not take a dogmatic view about the absolute cut-off time for

deliveries or about what vehicles should be excluded. Vehicles carrying disabled people are allowed to enter the pedestrian area during the closure period.

A flexible approach is needed, but the overall benefit of a pedestrian area has been greatly increased trade in the city centre. It has allowed out-of-town and city centre shopping in York to thrive. Shopping is now one of the great tourist attractions in York, along with its history and culture, which have been attracting tourists to the city for a long time.

The setting up and operating of civil enforcement teams is costly. In London, local authorities can make a profit from the income from fines, which more than covers the cost of enforcement. Westminster city council makes a handsome profit from its traffic offences fine income. In smaller towns and cities, however, that is not the case. If enforcement is effective in reducing the number of offences committed, which I hope is the wish of every member of the Committee, fine income will decline, and will inevitably decline to the point where it is lower than the cost of enforcement.

The Minister should consider how authorities in smaller towns and cities are to address the problem. If it is not addressed, we will encounter the difficulty of residents' raised expectations. They want the benefits of good traffic management—through residents' parking schemes, for instance—but find that parking is not properly policed and that, although they pay a charge for it, they are unable to gain any benefit. CCTV is also costly to set up, maintain and use for enforcement, but the cost has to be covered.

The civil enforcement proposals are warmly welcomed not only by the local authority, but by First, the local bus company in York, which has achieved a greater increase in bus use than any other bus undertaking in any part of the country, including Mayor Livingstone's significant improvements in London. First welcomes the proposals because it believes that if the body responsible for planning traffic management in the City of York—the local authority—is responsible also for its policing, it is likely to obtain greater compliance and therefore run its bus services better.

Returning to the difficulty of matching fine income to the cost of enforcement, I make the following proposal, which I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will support: the Bill might be amended to permit local authorities to set their own level for fines, on the basis that the level set must achieve only break-even on the relevant trading account, which could be audited by the district auditor. The proposal would prevent the problem in London that the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to, where local authorities use their fine income as a means of taxing the public. It would enable local authorities in areas where that is not the case to ensure that the cost of sustaining the free movement of traffic and providing a benefit for motorists is paid for by motorists and not by other members of community, as would be the case with the proposal from the hon. Member for Christchurch. Free-moving traffic is a benefit to motorists, and it should not be paid for by people who do not have cars.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I have long taken the view that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who will reply to the debate, is a reasonable and fair-minded person. That view was confirmed this week when I discovered that in his few leisure moments he likes to take members of his family out for a curry. I am willing to resume my place at any time if he is willing to rise to say that he will accept the amendments. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was a tour de force, and his arguments are unanswerable.

I am intrigued by the suggestion of the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) that a regulation should be made whereby fines would be collected until the authority breaks even. That could lead to a rather interesting situation: motorists would be hounded for the first half of the financial year but in the second half, by which time the authority would have broken even, a more relaxed view would be taken. I shall dwell on the proposal but, at the moment, I do not believe that it is workable.

If every member of the Committee were to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Beard, we would be here for several weeks listening to tales of injustices.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Perhaps we would get tickets for overstaying.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I believe that we can all relate instances from our own experience of injustices in this area. For many years, I have visited a shop on Edgware road to buy the shirts that I wear in this place.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The tie as well?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The tie, as may be obvious, is from America.

On arriving at the shop in a taxi, I noticed a traffic warden who appeared to be sheltering in the shop doorway. I was somewhat puzzled by that, as it was a warm, sunny day. It was not raining or windy. As I got out of the taxi, a motorist pulled up on the single yellow line, got out and went into a shop to collect a parcel that was waiting for him. The traffic warden immediately jumped out of the adjacent shop doorway, ran to the car and put a ticket on it. Similar incidents occurred on every occasion that I visited the shop over two years, until shop owners got together to ask the council for a parking bay, as the road is wide enough for one at that point. I am delighted that common sense has prevailed and that there is a timed parking bay outside the row of shops, but, until the council did what it should have done in the first place, the spot was a haven for traffic wardens wanting to dish out tickets, not because vehicles were obstructing the flow of traffic but because it was a temptation for motorists to stop. The road widened, and motorists needed to stop at the row of shops to load their vehicles.

A dear friend of mine was faced with a similar case when he parked outside his elderly aunt's house to load into his vehicle a piece of furniture that she had given to him. He parked on a single yellow line, so loading was allowed. While he was in the house

collecting the item, a traffic warden appeared and put a ticket on the vehicle. His wife had the presence of mind to video what was happening and the fact that the tailgate of the car was up so that it could be loaded. The traffic warden insisted that the ticket was properly issued. The case ultimately went to court and the motorist won.

Why should a motorist have to go through that? It just so happens that that motorist was a solicitor who had the expertise and knowledge to deal with the matter at no cost to himself, but how many motorists faced with receiving a notice of intended prosecution, then the threat of a summons, would have the nerve and, indeed, the time to go through court proceedings? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right to say that regulations ought to make provision for no penalty charge if there is a reasonable excuse for the motorist's action. I hope that the Minister is willing to accept the amendment.

I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who told the Committee about a disabled constituent who was unable to park in a disabled bay on a gradient. One wonders why on earth the disabled bay was put on a gradient in the first place. In my constituency, there is a disabled bay at the bottom of a steep hill and it is rarely used because disabled motorists find that if they use the bay, they cannot walk up the hill. There is a duty on local authorities to be more considerate when they are deciding where to place disabled bays. They ought to be more flexible as well.

At certain times of the day in Bridlington, taxi bays are empty. The taxi bays are fully used during evenings when nightclubs and bars are populated and people want a taxi, but the taxi ranks are not used fully during the day. Why should those bays not be used as disabled bays during the day or parking bays used for limited-time parking? The attitude of local authorities and others when it comes to dealing with the motorist who wants to park needs to change

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

The right hon. Gentleman makes the case that local authorities, or at least some, are inclined to be anti-motorist as a way to raise income. Why, therefore, does he not support my proposal to outlaw local authorities such as Westminster making a profit from their parking enforcement account and to limit the fines that they charge to an amount that covers the cost of enforcement? Surely he must agree with me about that.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I said to the hon. Gentleman that I was reflecting on his suggestion, and I have not dismissed it out of hand. It is certainly worth further consideration. One problem that Westminster has is that it has had to spend the money it has raised until now on parking and road alterations, which I also think is a mistake.

On my way home a couple of weeks ago, I happened to stop at a garage near Hampstead and I saw that the local paper had a banner headline stating ''Traffic Warden Boss Admits He Hates Motorists''. The paper had managed to persuade one of its

journalists to speak to the traffic warden head without revealing he was a journalist. In the course of the conversation, the man had freely admitted that he hated all motorists, and that he would do anything he could to get at them. That rather confirms the powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

It never ceases to amaze me when I visit a car park how, next to disabled bays, the latest trend is to see parking reserved for mother and child. At the same time, we read in the papers that we are becoming a nation of obese people and that young children ought to do more exercise. Surely mother and child parking places ought to be situated at the farthest flung part of the car park to make youngsters get some exercise. Whenever I see a bay marked out for mother and child, I park in it as a matter of principle.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Is that an official policy statement on behalf of the Conservatives?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

It is certainly not an official policy statement.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Order. I think some of these anecdotes are going a long way from the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful, Mr. Beard, for your protecting me from getting into hot water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said on amendment No. 132 that the regulations should include provision for standard compensation. I say to the Minister that we are not seeking anything other than a modest payment to cover the costs and inconvenience where a person has received a ticket in circumstances where he or she should not have done so. My hon. Friend referred to little Hitlers. It is not a phrase that I would use, but I know the point that he is making, and I think that he made it well. I would phrase it thus: the amendments are reasonable in scope and an attempt to deal with the problems caused by regulation-ridden, form-filling, pen-pushing nincompoops.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It is a pleasure to sum up the debate. On Tuesday, I had the pleasure of sitting for nearly five hours looking at the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. That was not a hardship at all. We had a further 50 minutes in questions on the Floor of the House and, as he pointed out, I spent another hour looking at him in an Indian restaurant in Kennington when I was taking a member of my family out. He seemed to be enjoying the company of his colleagues. He does not seem to be able to get away from this place; nevertheless, it was a pleasant evening.

Sometimes one has to step out of one's environment and look back at oneself from a distance to appreciate what is happening in one's own environment. Some time ago, on a Select Committee visit to the capital city of another country in Europe, I recall getting stuck in a three-hour traffic jam in a city that had far less traffic than London and many other British cities. It was completely jammed, and the traffic was not moving at all. We were stuck for three hours and missed our appointment. Even though there was near total

gridlock, it turned out that the reason we were stopped was almost entirely a junction with traffic lights where there was no yellow-box rule. The people there just drove into the junction one by one, and it took three hours to get through. Parking was everywhere: people parked where they wanted. They did not have to park their cars, but just abandoned them at the side of the road. Hence, even though the amount of cars and traffic was light, the flow of traffic was almost impossible.

What I am saying is that—this is really what is contained in this part of the Bill—we have very high car and vehicle usage. I am pleased about that. I represent many constituents who are well off and many who are not. Some of those people have access to a motor vehicle that, even 20 years ago, would not have been thought possible. With that freedom for people to use their car has to come responsibility. We cannot have total anarchy in the use of cars. If we had that, nobody would move anywhere, just as I did not in that capital city in Europe. Nobody was going anywhere, because everybody was trying to do their own thing and not obeying any laws. One price of that freedom is that we have to accept a high degree of regulation of what we do to enable us to go about our everyday business.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw raised some good points. His amendment would remove, in cases where action is being taken through the courts, the requirement that a person should not be punished twice for the same offence. That is clearly unfair and goes against the basic tenet of justice. It is also inconsistent. It would retain the principle of one contravention-one punishment when a fixed penalty notice is issued, but not when the contravention is subject to a court action. It would not be possible under his amendment to have a penalty charge notice and be taken to court by the police. On reflection, he would probably agree that that is not a terribly good idea.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Can the Minister tell us his view about the concerns expressed by the Metropolitan police? The letter been sent to us from the Metropolitan Police Service, Government Affairs Unit, Commissioner's Office seems to argue that there should be circumstances in which there is dual enforcement, which is exactly what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has argued for.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have just said that I think that that is unfair. Either one should be able to have a fixed penalty and be taken to court—one cannot be fined on both accounts—or one should be given one of the civil charge notices and be taken by the police to court. It is not right and reasonable to be punished twice for the same offence. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me. Indeed, he is nodding in agreement.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I agree with that.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Good.

To return to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, it is up to a local authority to ensure that the arrangements made by a service provider carrying out actions on its behalf are lawful and in accordance with its statutory functions. It must also ensure that its

private contractors act fairly and reasonably when providing services, particularly when the public are involved.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Surely it is a problem that motorists can be prosecuted twice for the same offence. I shall give the Minister an example. If a motorist exceeds the speed limit during one journey and he is stopped by the police, the police will prosecute him, or give him a ticket for speeding, for that journey. If the same motorist goes through two speed cameras on one journey, he gets two tickets. It is two offences but on one journey.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If a person walked down the street and smashed a shop window, then went a bit further down and knocked somebody to the ground, that would be two offences but on one journey, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Does the Minister accept that there is an anomaly? He could table amendments at a later stage of the Bill to tighten the law so that a private operator of a private car park can only use the civil courts to pursue debt. If a local authority is running a local authority car park, there is the parking adjudicator, but a private operator of a privatised local authority car park can at present use the criminal courts to raise whatever money he wants by threatening people with criminal action.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

A number of issues are involved here, some of which are not relevant to the clause. It may be helpful if, for clarity, I set the matter out in a note for my hon. Friend, because there are different procedures in different types of car park. I think that he is referring to private car parks, but issues also arise on publicly owned car parks and street parking, each of which is covered in a different way.

If a car park is in the decriminalised parking enforcement area, there is recourse to the criminal courts. Although a local authority may employ a private contractor as its agent to collect the fines, any prosecution to collect those fines is brought in the authority's name.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Can the Minister explain how, at Doncaster magistrates court, Excel Parking brought cases itself, and in all its letters demanding payment threatened to take cases to the criminal court, not in the name of the local authority or through it, but as a private operator. Excel is taking cases to the criminal courts to pursue what should be a civil debt.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That case does not relate to decriminalised parking. That is probably why a note to my hon. Friend is necessary to set out the various aspects. We are dealing here with decriminalised parking.

The hon. Member for Christchurch said that he is leading the fight back for middle Britain. That is wonderful, because much of what he complains about is contained in the 1991 Act, which came into force when he was the Minister.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Exactly.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman is now doing a U-turn on what he personally introduced. Many of the powers that we are dealing with today were brought in

under his guidance as the Minister at the time. He referred to the little Hitlers—I would certainly not use that description, and I notice that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire did not, so there may be some difference between them there—but these little Hitlers were brought in by the Act that he introduced to Parliament. Also, in the guidance that came out in 1995, which was not produced by this Government, chapter 18, dealing with contracts for compulsory competitive tendering, specified that enforcement had to be competitively tendered, usually to outside contractors. If there are little Hitlers, the hon. Gentleman's fingers are all over their introduction.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

It is surely sensible for a legislature to look at the effect of its legislation in practice. I challenge the Minister to show any provision in the legislation that we introduced in 1991, with which I am proud to have been associated, for enforcement officers to be allowed to act disproportionately and unreasonably. That is the problem that we now face. If we do not respond we will get into the difficulty identified by the Automobile Association, which says:

''The civil enforcement of parking and traffic offences will be discredited if motorists come to regard it as a revenue-gathering exercise rather than a road safety and traffic management issue.''

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Order. It is not in order to start reading large tracts during an intervention.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman is saying that there were unintended consequences of the Act that he took though Parliament. We are putting some of those things right and bringing in guidelines that will make it operate better.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the report in the Evening Standard regarding the adjudicator. I think his raising of the matter reinforces the effectiveness of the independent adjudication process. Were that process not in place, we would not have the comments that Martin Wood, the chief adjudicator, made. I endorse those comments, and if those criticisms are well founded, they vindicate the presence of an independent person to exercise that task.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Does the Minister agree that it would be much more sensible for those cases not to be brought before the adjudicator in the first place, and for prosecutions not to be initiated in unreasonable circumstances?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If everybody parked in the right places and nobody ever committed a crime, we would not need courts or adjudicators or anything of that sort. Unfortunately, human beings are frail and there are sometimes mistakes, which is why we have the adjudicator to assist people in cases where there are errors or where an injustice may have been perpetrated. That further underlines why it is a good thing.

Regarding amendment No. 50, the recipient of a parking penalty charge notice can already make representations to an enforcing authority. If those representations are not accepted and the penalty charge remains unpaid after 28 days, the authority

will issue a notice to the owner, giving the recipient a further opportunity to make a formal representation. If that is rejected, the recipient has recourse to appeal to the independent adjudicator. This two-stage system for making representations in the case of parking penalties was, of course, established in the Road Traffic Act 1991. Penalty charge notices for other contraventions subject to civil enforcement under the Bill will be served by post. The intention is that regulations will give the recipient 28 days to make representations. The right to an appeal to the independent adjudicator would remain.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am not sure that the Minister has understood the point. If representations cannot be made within the first 14 days, which is the situation under the current regulations, the person thinking of making those representations is deprived of the opportunity of receiving the 50 per cent. discount that he would get if the penalty was paid within 14 days.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

My understanding is that, in most cases, if somebody makes an informal representation within a period of time, the authority stops the clock on the 14-day period.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his understanding, but the Automobile Association tells me that that is not the situation. If he is persuaded that that is not the current situation, will he table an amendment on Report to cover the lacuna in the law?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If that situation exists, I would want to see evidence. If the hon. Gentleman can provide some, I would be very pleased to see it.

Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 would restrict the Secretary of State's ability to decide the regulations on the imposition of penalty charges and to specify whether there should be exemptions, discounts and surcharges. In the case of moving traffic contraventions, we want to see what the pilots in London reveal about the appropriateness and effectiveness of enforcement by cameras and civil enforcement officers' reports. We therefore believe that flexibility should be retained in regulations.

On amendment No. 131, contraventions must already be properly signed or imposed so that motorists understand and appreciate them. We also expect the enforcement authority to exercise its judgment when confronted with mitigating circumstances. Having said that, if any individual feels that they are being treated unfairly, they will have recourse to the independent adjudicator.

On amendment No. 132, appeals are quite right, but neither side should be penalised once the appeal is over. The amendment is not even-handed. If an individual should lose their appeal, it does not provide that there should be a further charge. There is a caveat, however: an adjudicator can already award costs where he is of the opinion that either the appellant or the local authority has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or that their conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was totally or wholly

unreasonable. In addition, costs may be awarded against the local authority where the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable. Such decisions will be retained in regulations made under clause 76(5).

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Does the Minister accept that there is an anomaly whereby if there is a private operator of a local authority off-street car park, the adjudicator's powers cannot come into play because he does not have the authority? It is a major anomaly in the proposal's fairness to any individual who wishes to dispute whether a charge has been brought properly.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am informed that the adjudicator does have powers in those circumstances. In my written answer to my hon. Friend, it may be helpful if I set out where the adjudicator has those powers.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The adjudicator himself says that he does not have those powers. My attempts to take cases to him in precisely that situation have been refused. He says that he has no jurisdiction over private operation over local authority car parks.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If my hon. Friend sends me a specific example, I will have it closely examined. We must know the exact circumstances and who has the contract with whom. I would be very interested to look at the case.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I may be able to help the Committee. The Minister might address the matter by carefully examining the wording of schedule 7 and making it absolutely clear that when we are dealing with an off-street designated parking area the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw would be decriminalised. That would be the easiest way of dealing with the dispute.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw made a valid point. If he is right and the Minister is wrong, it needs to be addressed on Report. Will the Minister promise to consider the matter before Report, while there is still time for amendments to be tabled, and let all members of the Committee know the position?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Certainly. That is my intention, but I want to clarify the matter. It is complex because different practices occur in different areas. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw would provide information about the circumstances to my officials and me so that we can investigate the situation. It may be that there is some local misunderstanding about who has power to do what. If that is not the case, we will clarify the matter.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Through the miraculous efficiency of the Clerk's department, the right piece of paper has sped into my hand. Part 4 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which deals with parking places, is amended in schedule 7. The matter can be resolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made a good point if he has correspondence from the commissioner that outlines the anomaly that he described.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That is very helpful. Some clarification is required, and I am happy to provide

it, not just for my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw but, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has asked, for all members of the Committee.

Amendment No. 133 would introduce unworkable complexity. It implies that we should have a sliding scale of penalty charges based on a subjective judgment of the seriousness of a contravention. The amendment does not say who would make the judgment.

The Bill provides for some variation in the setting of charges in schedule 9. Different levels may be set for different cases or classes of cases. For example, it allows for continuation of three parking penalty bands in London. At present, they are £100, £80 or £60, depending on the zone in which the contravention occurs, with the highest penalty applying in the most congested areas, such as central London.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister is familiar with the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines on speeding enforcement and penalties. Is there a role for him, as Minister, to issue guidelines on parking enforcement? For example, there are situations in which it would be reasonable to allow two or three minutes before placing a penalty notice on a car, or to allow a penalty to be paid rather than require the motorist to collect the car from the pound after it has been removed. Those issues of proportionality are of everyday concern to ordinary people.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman must agree that there would be a high degree of subjectivity in all those judgments. If someone has gone over by a minute, would they be fined £1, or £2 if over by two minutes? That would be absurd. The whole process would become bogged down with appeals and discussions about how long someone had overrun their time. It would become nonsensical.

In general, it is reasonable to ask those who enforce parking regulations to use good sense. I believe that in most cases they do; clearly, in some cases they do not, and we all know of examples. We should encourage local authorities to promote good practice among those who enforce the regulations. For the police, that is generally the case. A police officer will use discretion and good sense, and a little bit of discretion and good sense is needed in enforcing some of the other regulations as well.

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Enforcement should not be harsh, but there is a difference—I believe that he would agree with this—between someone who is a minute or two over their time and someone who flagrantly ignores all the usual laws, just parks their car anywhere and blocks the road.

In another part of the Bill, there is a time limit on clamping. Clamping cannot take place immediately: the clamp cannot be whacked on after the first minute.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We are getting somewhere. The Minister has accepted that the police are reasonable. In a situation in which the police are excluded from the process—we are talking about civil enforcement—there must be a role for the Minister to give guidance.

Will he consider issuing guidance on people who overstay their limit on a parking meter for a very short time? At the moment, they are subject to an unreasonable level of enforcement.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Guidance was published some time ago, but it would not be unreasonable to give a further indication of how things should operate. I will certainly consider the matter and see whether the guidance that came out in 1995 needs to be revisited.

Amendment No. 134 would require an enforcement authority to publish an annual report on its enforcement activities, which would give details of income received, and the number of appeals and representations and their outcome. That would be an unnecessary additional imposition. Authorities are already required to keep accounts of income and expenditure on enforcement activities, and they provide statistics to the Home Office on the number of penalty charges issued. Parking adjudicators publish annual reports on appeals and their outcomes.

The rules on box junctions are pretty clear. The box should not be entered until the exit is clear. If that is enforced using CCTV cameras, the moving image will pick up on somebody cutting in front of the driver—I think that it was the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire who raised that issue. It is not the camera that imposes the penalty; it is the operator who looks at the film, and who interprets it and decides whether somebody has committed an offence. If a driver was outside a yellow box and someone cut in front of them, it would be picked up by the camera.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

In the case of a camera dealing with a fixed offence, such as a speeding offence, a still photograph can be supplied to the accused person. In the situation that the Minister describes, when one needs to look at the whole sequence of events—a video recording—how will evidence be made available to somebody who feels aggrieved? Supposing there is a space at the other side of the box junction when the driver sets out to cross it, but some lunatic cuts in front and takes it. How will the driver test whether that has been taken into account?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I asked that question myself, because it is an important one. As in all cases, the evidence must be available to both sides. I believe that, just as a photograph from a speed camera can be issued to the person who is accused, the film will be available for examination.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for City of York raised the costliness of civil enforcement and excesses. We will come on to some of the issues raised when we reach clause 89, which relates to excess penalties. It may be more appropriate to answer those points then.

I hope that my remarks have been helpful in summarising this interesting debate. I ask the Committee to resist the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I chose to listen to the Minister before saying anything in the hope that reasonableness would be the order of the day—it is certainly the theme of the

amendments. Sadly, however reasonable the Minister is as a person, his response to the amendments was not reasonable. I come at the issues from the view that my father always took about cars. He was quite convinced that if people could work out a way of driving their cars up to the bedroom to save walking upstairs, they probably would, and that the human race has a love affair with cars. If people in developing countries are asked what they want, they say a car. Most of us want a car and enjoy using it. People want a car if they live in a country where they have no means of a recognisably western European way of life unless they have a vehicle because public transport is not available.

A few people, however, seem to hate cars and car drivers—I shall not speculate on their motives—and see it as their mission in life to make it as difficult as possible for people to use what they want to use. I am not suggesting that that is party political issue, but it makes car drivers anti-authority. They see themselves as put upon. If we want to persuade society to act responsibly and to accept authority, we must take seriously any attempt to set out deliberately to antagonise car drivers with the sort of pettifogging nonsense that the amendments cover. That is why I hope that the Minister will agree, on further reflection, to think about some of the issues again and to see whether we can do something about them.

The classic instance of what the Minister got wrong came when he referred to amendment No. 131 and reasonable excuse. The Minister wants the Committee to reject the amendment because he said that it was possible for common sense to apply and that he hoped the enforcers would use their common sense. There are hundreds and thousands of examples—I shall not bore the Committee with them—of enforcers not using their common sense. The little Hitlers really do exist, and even those who are not quite that have quotas and targets and fear for their jobs if they do not issue enough tickets in a day. It is not adequate for the Minister to say that he hopes that those people will use their common sense. We have an opportunity in amendment No. 131 to say that they must be reasonable. If the Minister does not like the wording, he can take more advice and return on Report with an amendment to give more strength to his wish that people use common sense. We would be happy not to pursue amendment No. 131 if we had a promise that another way would be found to turn the Minister's wish into an instruction

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

When I was a local councillor and people were talking to me about taking judicial review, the Wednesbury test, under which all decisions taken had to be reasonable, was suggested. Does that not apply to everything that we are talking about? Leave for judicial review would be granted only on the grounds of unreasonableness. If someone was being unreasonable, judicial review would be allowed, so what is the point of amendment No. 131?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Has the hon. Gentleman ever contemplated the cost of judicial review, particularly

given that we have been told that compensation does not appeal to the Minister?

The Minister said that there is provision for costs. In my limited experience, costs rarely amount to what is required to compensate someone for what has happened. There are measurable costs, and it would be interesting to know what his definition of costs would be. If the Minister wants to respond, I shall give way. There is the cost to a person's reputation for being hauled up and told that they must pay for the tickets. There is the cost of a day's work if they must go before an adjudicator. In my layman's experience of what happens when someone ends up in court, the costs rarely seem to bear much relationship to the totality.

The Minister was unhappy with the idea that there should be payment in compensation, but not the other way around. I did not follow that argument. If a parking ticket is slapped on, there is a cost if the ticket is justified and there should be a cost on the other side if the ticket is not justified, because what is fair for one is fair for the other. I do not understand the argument that somehow that would cause a double problem. It would focus the minds of the little Hitlers wonderfully, particularly if any costs awarded came out of their wages rather than the council tax payers' kitty. They might actually stop to think, and the Minister might achieve the objective of people being reasonable and sensible, rather than leaping out of doorways, as we heard earlier. It seems right to me to pursue amendment No. 133. The Minister has not given me any reason not to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

In relation to amendment No. 134, the Minister said that a report was unnecessary. I thought that he was a Member of a Government that believed in open government, and was keen to have transparency. On this occasion, for some reason, he does not want to be transparent. He wants us to hide the matter. One of his colleagues on the Committee was questioning why people should be able to make a profit out of the issue, and I could be persuaded to go down that route.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman blinked while I was saying it, but the amendment is unnecessary, not because authorities should not make a report, but because they already make one.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

They keep it pretty quiet, as far as I can see. The maximum amount of publicity that is given to the number of tickets issued and the amount of profit made in the case of certain councils might reveal what is really going on, and offer another opportunity for the Minister to enforce his will.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

For the sake of clarity, let me say that the local authority has to make a report on income from parking penalties and how it is disposed of. That is a public document open for scrutiny by councillors and residents. The idea of having a further report is unnecessary.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I do not think so at all. A report would highlight the nonsense that is going on in some councils. I hear what the Minister says, but he does not persuade me.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument suggests that he would be even more hostile to the privatisation of local authority car parks to companies whose sole purpose was to make a profit by dint of the fact that they were private companies. Any encouragement of privatisation should therefore be reversed so that democratically accountable local authorities take the rap for their actions.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I see Dick Turpin riding over the horizon. I do not necessarily accept that point. My experience of such issues is that when there is trouble relating to the use of private contractors it is almost always the case that the contract that was written in the first place is the cause of it. The hon. Gentleman makes some fair points about what can happen if private contractors are used, and there are many anecdotes about that if we want to go down that route, such as those concerning clampers on private land.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Is the answer not in our hands today? We are making the law. We could impose a duty on any private person, or as our amendment would ensure, require that someone who is dealt with unfairly has a remedy.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Absolutely. That is exactly the point that I was gradually working my way to. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for getting there quicker than I might have done. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw of ''public good, private bad''. Public can be awful, as can private.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Order. Can we stick to the point of the amendments, not start a discussion about privatisation?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful, Mr. Beard, for being rescued because I was sorely tempted, but you allowed the hon. Gentleman to ask me a question and in fairness, since I am reasonable person, I thought it proper to do my level best to answer him. I do accept that he should not have asked me the question in the first place because it led me down that route.

It seems to me that all the amendments are reasonable. The Minister says that he is a reasonable man.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I said he was.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

He did.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Well, the Minister did not leap to his feet and say that he was unreasonable, so I took that to be agreement. In my dealings with the Minister I have found him a reasonable and fair-minded person. Since all the amendments are fair-minded, reasonable, sensible and common sense, I am amazed that he cannot apply his own reasonableness to reasonableness from Opposition Members.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We have had a good debate on this group of amendments, and I understand that you are likely to take the view, Mr. Beard, that we should not have a clause stand part debate as well. I am sure that no member of the Committee would quarrel with that, if it were your ruling.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sorry that my hon. Friend said that, because one issue has not been covered.

Therefore, I hope he does not ask you to stop me in my prime, Mr. Beard.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If my hon. Friend can tell me what that issue is, we may be able to debate it shortly.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes. The issue arises in subsection (2)—

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Order. Is this an intervention?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Yes, it is.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am trying to explain to my hon. Friend that the issue arises in subsection (2) and relates to whether the driver, the owner or another appropriate person should be liable for paying a ticket. It is a separate issue.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I hope that the Minister will be able to address my hon. Friend's concern. If it is not sufficiently clear, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek an opportunity to make it clearer during this debate, if indeed it the clause stand part debate is to be consolidated into it.

I want to record appreciation of the Minister's response to amendment No. 50, because there is a fundamental disagreement about the existing law, and the AA Motoring Trust's exact words. It said:

''Under the civil system a penalty notice is usually reduced by 50 per cent. if it is paid within 14 days. This is sensible and encourages prompt payment. However, a challenge to a penalty notice can only technically be made 14 days after the 'notice to owner' is usually sent. This goes against natural justice by effectively threatening a 50 per cent. surcharge if someone dares to challenge within the discounted period.''

The Minister seemed to accept the AA's point, and I hope that, when he has had a chance to consider the matter further, he will table an amendment on Report to address that real concern. I shall not press amendment No.50, because I want the Minister to think about it further.

However, I want to test the Committee's will on amendment No. 131, because it relates to reasonableness. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made strong points in support of introducing an element of reasonableness. The Minister's response is to say, ''Ultimately you can go to the adjudicator, who will deal with matters''. That is an incredibly long-winded and uncertain process, in which many people who lead busy lives are not prepared to get involved. A better way to deal with the matter would be to introduce at the outset a requirement on the enforcing authorities to be reasonable and to have regard to whether the motorist has a reasonable excuse. I hope that we can press that amendment to a vote.

As regards box junction enforcement, I think that there will be scope to argue specifically about box junctions on the next clause.

The Bill gives us a chance to revisit civil enforcement in practice, drawing on the experience of the last 12 or 13 years following the introduction of the 1991 Act. I was proud to be associated with putting that legislation on the statute book, but nobody in their right mind would suggest that legislation should never be amended in the light of

experience, and the ordinary motorist's experience is that enforcement is now unnecessarily rigid and inflexible. If that is the problem—we see it in our postbags, read about it in the press and know about it from our own experience and that of our friends and relatives—it is incumbent on us not to dig our heels in and say, ''Well, I was responsible for putting the legislation through, so it must be good and I do not want to suggest there is anything at fault in it''. I am prepared to admit—in fact I am eager to stress—that the unreasonable enforcement that we now see was never contemplated in 1991. If it had been, we would have addressed it in the 1991 legislation. We now have an opportunity to address it, and I hope the Committee will seize it.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Order. I will not be inclined to call a stand part debate after this very wide-ranging discussion. If the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) wishes to discuss clause 68(2) further I suggest he now does so.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

There is a small matter that I think the Minister can clarify for me. I hope that ''any other appropriate person'' includes people who steal cars and go joy-riding. Will the Minister assure us of that? It would be monstrously unreasonable if I ended up having to pay some sort of penalty if somebody stole my car and left it on yellow lines. I am sure that the Minister can confirm that ''appropriate person'' would include a thief.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The issue in relation to reasonableness, and in relation to private versus public, which I think is crucial to people's concept of reasonableness, is not a pedantic one. I have had no cases brought to me of complaints about local authority running of car parks, but more than 300 from across the country about private operators of local authority car parks, and 36 of them have gone to the criminal courts. Over-zealousness is fundamental. It seems reasonable to me for people to have independent adjudication, either through civil courts, or through a parking adjudicator. That principle needs to be brought into the law, although I will not push my amendment, as the Minister has explained that its wording would not meet the requirements of what I intend it to do.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

In response to the first remarks of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, bringing in certain enforcement actually helps the vast majority of motorists by getting free flow of traffic. It helps people to go about their business. In many cases we are protecting the majority, who are law-abiding and want to go about their everyday business as smoothly as they can, from an inconsiderate minority. I would have thought that that was exactly what Parliament should be doing.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I invite the Minister, when he gets the chance to read Hansard, to find a single word I have uttered that says that I oppose the principle of these provisions.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had made that clear in his speech. It certainly did not come out in what he said. I wrote down that he used the term ''pettifogging'' rules. I will give an example.

Where there is a residents' parking area, occasionally people who park in the residents' slots will say, ''That is a pettifogging rule''. However, to the residents themselves, who cannot get in and out of their houses because somebody is blocking all the spaces, it is not a pettifogging rule; it is essential to their everyday life. That also goes for parking at the side of the road. We do not have to travel far from this building to see how one person leaving their car at the side of a road, often in a bus lane, can cause huge congestion and, in some cases, such as where buses are required to pull round vehicles illegally parked in the bus lanes, danger to others. I do not think that these are pettifogging rules. They are essential for protecting the majority. That is what we are about on this side of the House.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked about subsection (2). The regulations will include a provision specifying the person or persons liable to pay the penalty charge. Following the precedent of decriminalised parking enforcement and bus lane enforcement, we intend the regulations to make the owner of the vehicle liable for the penalty charge. Again, following existing precedent, where the owner of the vehicle is a hire company and at the time of contravention the vehicle is the subject of a hire agreement, the regulations will allow for the company to pass on liability for the penalty charge to the person who hired the vehicle. Similarly, if a contravention took place before the current owner acquired the vehicle, they would not be liable to pay the penalty charge. If a contravention takes place after a vehicle is sold, the new owner will be liable. It will also be a defence against a penalty charge to argue that at the time of a contravention the vehicle had been taken without the consent of the owner. I hope that is helpful.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 131, in

page 41, line 17, at end add—

'(6) The regulations shall include provision that a penalty charge shall not be imposed in respect of any description of conduct in which there is a reasonable excuse having regard to the circumstances at the time.'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Clause 69 - Contraventions subject to civil enforcement

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 136, in

page 41, leave out line 23.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 137, in

page 41, leave out line 24.

No. 138, in

page 41, leave out line 25.

No. 151, in

page 41, line 31, at end insert—

'(4A) Regulations under this part of the Act may not extend provision in relation to different descriptions of contraventions to include such contraventions as are likely to cause or contribute to a road traffic accident.'.

No. 139, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out lines 8 to 22.

No. 140, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out lines 23 to 29.

No. 141, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out from line 30 to end of line 25 on page 73.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Clause 69 deals with contraventions subject to civil enforcement. Amendment Nos. 136 to 138 and the consequential amendments Nos. 139 to 141 to schedule 7 would leave out references to bus lane, London lorry ban and moving traffic contraventions. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) will speak to amendment No. 151 with which we have a lot of sympathy, having read the briefing from the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety.

Bus lane enforcement in London is rather hit and miss at the moment. We are told that there has been a substantial increase in the number of bus lane contraventions that are now the subject of fixed penalty notices. The clause would extend that across the country, but we should have regard for what is happening in practice. A car that momentarily occupies an empty bus lane becomes the subject of civil enforcement. If vehicles impede the progress of buses along bus lanes, that is one thing, but a vehicle that momentarily enters a bus lane that is otherwise empty does not hinder the flow of traffic but improves it, which is what the Bill is, or should be, about.

Bus lane enforcement and enforcement of other moving traffic contraventions have been the subject of representations by the Metropolitan police. I am sure that other members of the Committee received the briefing note that I received. It has caused me concern. It states that

''the newly formed MPS Transport Operational Command Unit (TOCU), funded by the Mayor under a Special Services Agreement (SSA)'',

as part of its core business, is

''to ensure the efficient movement of buses on agreed routes/locations and assist in the control of congestion at agreed priority locations . . . When the Bill was first drafted the TOCU SSA was still being negotiated, therefore the implications of the Bill on their business was not considered. The TOCU is also unique in that it employs Traffic Police Community Support Officers (combined Traffic Wardens and PCSOs) able to deal with disorder and Traffic offences.''

Since the establishment of the new operational command unit, there has been much more Metropolitan police enforcement of prohibited left and right and turns: there was enforcement of 3,922 instances in 2002; in 2003, that had risen to 6,221. At the same time, contraventions of box junctions had declined from 244 to 169.

The Met says that it wishes to deal with the problem of motorists who are breaking not only the motoring law but other laws as well, and it is concerned that dual enforcement will not be possible. I accept the Minister's arguments on the last group of amendments that to have motorists in double jeopardy is the wrong solution. If it is wrong, the preferable course, in the light of the experience of the Metropolitan police, is for them to retain enforcement responsibility for moving traffic offences, which is the subject of my amendment.

I quote again from the briefing, which I hope the Minister takes seriously. It states:

''It is therefore necessary for the police to have the ability to address poor or bad driving whenever it occurs.

The TOCU and the Traffic OCU would prefer to have the option of dual enforcement''—

as I said, I do not believe that that is appropriate—

''as already occurs for parking in the controlled areas of a pedestrian crossing:- offending vehicles may be issued with a penalty charge by parking attendant or a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) by the police service.''

The Met wants dual enforcement, but, if that is not possible, it should have sole responsibility for enforcement of moving traffic offences. The briefing draws attention to the disparity in the penalties that are available for criminal enforcement, for which the police are responsible, and civil enforcement. It states that

''the civil penalty is substantially more than the criminal Fixed Penalty. A sum of £80 or £100 is being suggested''

for the civil penalty,

''compared with £30 and £60 for endorsable offences, with the civil penalty going to the Local Authority''

rather than the Exchequer.

The Metropolitan police says that it would be able to address the problem of not being able to stop vehicles at box junctions, in bus lanes and for moving traffic offences if the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970 were amended. It would then be able to enforce yellow box junctions and prohibited turns. Why does the Minister think that it is better to pass that function to wholly civilian people instead of transferring it to traffic wardens who, however much

some people may dislike them, at least come under the Metropolitan police code of discipline.

The police are keen to retain that responsibility and do not wish it to be passed over to civilian enforcement. In the light of their powerful submission, I hope that the Minister will accede to our amendments, which will increase public confidence. We know that the police and those trained by them are better able to exercise reasonable discretion in practice and have the power to enforce the wider criminal law, which is so often the subject of contravention by those who offend the traffic regulations.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I have no problem with the clause moving road traffic contraventions from criminal to civil enforcement. In fact I support it and believe that it is the right way forward. The examples in the Bill seem perfectly reasonable. My problem arises from the discrepancy between the explanatory notes and the Bill. The explanatory notes to the clause say:

''Contraventions which would lead to licence endorsement may not be added to the list of moving traffic contraventions.''

However, that does not appear in the Bill, and concern has been expressed that the offences to be decriminalised might include safety-critical activities such as driving without a seat belt or without lights. Safety issues must also be taken into account. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned PACT, which says that offences that could lead to crashes should remain criminal offences.

The pattern of decriminalisation is reasonable, although it has been somewhat piecemeal over the years, but the clause could be used to extend it much further than is intended. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that that piecemeal approach will be stopped and issues of safety will continue to be criminal offences.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise primarily to support amendment No. 139 and to tease out some information from the Minister.

Many motorists are annoyed when they face a 24-hour bus lane, when there is no such thing as 24-hour buses. Some local authorities are reasonable in this regard and fix a plate under the bus lane sign to stipulate its hours of operation. In many parts of London, bus lanes coming into the centre operate only during the morning rush hour and those going out of the centre operate only in the evening rush hour. That is a sensible way of proceeding. Where carriageways face congestion and a bus lane is empty, it surely makes sense—if we are in the business of removing congestion, which I believe most members of the Committee are—that, where appropriate, motorists are allowed to use empty bus lanes.

The part of schedule 7 relating to bus lanes, paragraph 6(2)(b), states:

''only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic.''

I ask the Minister whether that is variable or set in stone in a statute? In other words, can a local authority decide what, in their opinion, should be deemed

''some other class or class of vehicular traffic''

that is able to use a bus lane? If it is fixed, will the Minister consider introducing some flexibility?

I put that to the Minister because, in other countries, attempts have been made to dissuade motorists from going out in a motor vehicle on their own. The classic example concerns the school rat run, where one mother will take her car out to fetch her child or children. America, in particular, encourages car sharing. On the freeways of certain states, someone in a car with more than one passenger is entitled to use a fast lane that they would otherwise be prohibited from using. It seems to me that we should look in this country at allowing motorists who are willing to go in for car sharing to use bus lanes. If, by so doing, we could encourage a percentage of the population to leave their motor vehicles at home, would not that be welcome?

I would like to know the Minister's thinking. Is he, for example, willing to reflect on perhaps allowing some experiment to take place in certain parts of the country, with motorists who share their vehicle allowed to use the bus lane? I hope that he is prepared to react positively to and think imaginatively about that suggestion. It seems to me that it would—at a stroke—reduce congestion. We heard a lot of talk this morning about how many of us in the House think of the Minister as a reasonable man. I hope that in addition to being reasonable, he

will show us that he has got imagination and spark, and is clearly future Cabinet material, by saying that he will consider a car-sharing scheme allowing motorists to use a bus lane. Who knows, in future, that may be his contribution to posterity?

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Order. There will be an opportunity to consider car sharing and bus lanes later in the clause and in clause 3.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I have some sympathy with Conservative suggestions for innovative car-sharing schemes. However, I am concerned that they are proposing to take out the specifics on contraventions to do with buses. It is one thing piloting studies to see if there can be a way of making a scheme work, but I am concerned that wholesale removal from the Bill would be counter-productive.

There does not appear to be a mention of cycling. I know that the Cyclists' Touring Club, the national cyclists' organisation, has raised the question as to why there is no mention of such contraventions in the Bill—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Clause 69 - Contraventions subject to civil enforcement

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:

No. 137, in

page 41, leave out line 24.

No. 138, in

page 41, leave out line 25.

No. 151, in

page 41, line 31, at end insert—

'(4A) Regulations under this part of the Act may not extend provision in relation to different descriptions of contraventions to include such contraventions as are likely to cause or contribute to a road traffic accident.'.

No. 139, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out lines 8 to 22.

No. 140, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out lines 23 to 29.

No. 141, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out from line 30 to end of line 25 on page 73.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

The clause identifies four categories of road traffic contraventions that are to be subjected to civil enforcement. The four that are listed do not seem to include cycling. There is a brief mention in schedule 7, which we will possibly discuss in more detail later. Paragraphs 3(2)(g) and 4(2)(h) both refer to section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in relation to cycle tracks.

The CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, wants to know whether the definition of cycle tracks includes things such as cycle lanes and cyclists' advance stop-line facilities. I am sure that the Committee knows that they are the coloured bits on the road in front of traffic lights. I want to see proper protection for all cyclists, in the same way that we offer protection to other road users. Sometimes cyclists seem to be the Cinderella users of the public transport network. They appear to come bottom of the pile for investment. If we are trying to reduce traffic congestion, cyclists are incredibly environmentally friendly. The more cyclists we have, the greater will be the reduction in both congestion and pollution.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a duty on all cyclists to obey the law and that where cyclists start riding on footpaths without due care and attention, they should be prosecuted just the same as a motorist is?

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Two or three weeks ago I was out with the Shrewsbury police on an evening patrol. I was delighted when they stopped some youngsters who were riding on the pavement. That needs to be picked up. It presents many dangers to pedestrians. Cyclists need to be responsible, just like all other road users. As I said, if we want to reduce congestion we need to get as many people as possible walking and cycling. With the fragmented cycling network in most towns and cities it is a real problem. Cyclists and pedestrians face real dangers and they need protection. Why is a cycling contravention not included in the clause? Surely there can be greater definition of what cycle tracks mean. I hope that the Minister can help.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I apologise to you, Miss Begg, to the Minister and to members of the Committee that I will have to leave early to attend my daughter's school parents evening. I sincerely hope that this will be a short debate and that I will be here long enough to hear the Minister's response. I find myself in the deeply embarrassing position of having to agree with what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) said about cyclists. I fully support civil enforcement of both parking and moving traffic offences in bus lanes and pedestrian areas. It will mean that those areas will be used as intended. I am sorry that the Conservative party seeks to delete civil enforcement from the Bill. There will be less rigorous enforcement if the arrangements are not changed.

It is a good thing that there will be enforcement of both parking and moving traffic offences in bus lanes and pedestrian areas. Enforcement is less clear in relation to cycle lanes, cycle gaps and other on-road provision for cyclists. Subsection (2)(d) refers to moving traffic contraventions and they are listed in part 4 of schedule 7. Why does not the Minister also include in the Bill the civil enforcement of parking offences in cycle lanes and other cyclists' areas of roads? As someone who cycles quite a bit, I believe that it is dangerous when someone parks in a cycle lane to the side of the road, because cyclists are forced to ride out in traffic that may be travelling at a considerable speed. It impedes the traffic, leading to congestion, and deters cyclists from cycling in busy areas. If they, like me, are fortunate enough to have a car as well as bicycle, many will use the car instead. I would like to hear the Minister's response to the idea of broadening the scope of the Bill to deal with parking in cycle lanes.

On moving traffic contraventions, the Minister has kindly provided us with a multicoloured list of traffic signals that are covered by part 4 of schedule 7. In my experience, it is the first time that we have had a colour document in a Standing Committee, and I congratulate the Minister on an impressive innovation.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Order. I wonder whether the use of colour is in order in such matters, but in this case we will allow it.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I stand corrected. Miss Begg. I will refer to the document as a chromographic list.

The list includes sign No. 953, which designates a route

''for use by buses and pedal cycles only''

but does not include the sign for a route for use by cycles only. I ask the Minister whether the omission is deliberate and whether it could be put right. I do not believe that the criminal law enforcement authorities—the police—have the time or should properly be using it to enforce moving or parking offences in cycle lanes. If the enforcement were civil, there would be more rigorous enforcement of infringements. That would be good for cyclists and the free flow of traffic, because more people would cycle and fewer cyclists would stray out into fast-moving traffic.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall speak about part 4 of schedule 7 and the splendid little aide-mémoire that the Minister gave us.

I raise my first point because I started life as a printer. I draw the Minister's attention to the references to ''Motor vehicles prohibited'', which have a diagram reference of 619, and

''Motor vehicles except solo motor cycles prohibited'',

which have a diagram reference of 619.1. I was brought up as a printer to understand that there was a significance in colours being different. One sign has a pale red circle, which I do not recognise, and if the diagrams are being presented as definitive parts of legislation, and will be printed in colour, that colour should be correct. It strikes me that it is not.

My more substantial point refers to ''Box junction markings'', which has a diagram reference of 1043, 1044. The point was made in an earlier debate about using cameras to prove that someone is in a box junction. That is correct up to a point, but brings us back to the issue of reasonable excuse, which we discussed this morning so I will not repeat it. In essence, the issue is similar to one in which I was involved about variable speed limits on the M25. I dealt with the part of the M25 that was in my constituency. Drivers were passing under a gantry where the sign showed that the variable speed limit was 50 mph, but when they came out the other side and activated the cameras, the speed limit had changed to 40 mph. Technically, they were therefore speeding without having known that the speed limit had changed. It took some ingenuity on behalf of the then Government to find a way round the problem, but a solution was found.

The point made this morning about box junctions is that a photograph of somebody in one does not necessarily prove that the driver was at fault. There could have been a sensible space ahead when they moved into the box junction, but somebody or something could have conspired to ensure that the space was then blocked before they got out the other side. A single photograph could not demonstrate that. I am sure that the Minister would not want fixed

penalties, prosecutions or anything else in cases in which the only evidence was a single photograph that proved that what appeared at that moment to be an offence was being committed.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Committee Room this morning when I said that the difference is that speed cameras take a pair of fixed pictures, whereas this would be a moving camera image.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful for that. I should have said at the outset that when the Committee was discussing this morning when we might sit or not sit and when you might catch your aeroplane this evening, Miss Begg, I was not in the Room, so if that were covered, I apologise. I am grateful for that assurance: otherwise, there is a genuine issue there, like the issue of variable speed cameras.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I have a question about paragraph 3(2)(d) of schedule 7, using reference 619 as an example. Can I clarify that this could be used with a single fixed camera as a way of curtailing rat-running in an area?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Miss Begg. Amendments Nos. 136 to 141 would take bus lane, lorry ban and moving traffic contraventions out of the scope of civil enforcement. Those powers all exist in previous Acts of Parliament: in the London Local Authorities Act 1996, the Transport Act 2000 and the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. These amendments would not delete those powers, but would preserve a situation in which certain powers were available to authorities in London but not elsewhere, despite the fact that authorities throughout the country face many of the same problems in managing road and street networks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) tabled amendment No. 151, which would prevent a traffic contravention that would be

''likely to cause or contribute to''

a road crash from being subject to civil enforcement. He would agree with me that failure to comply with almost any traffic regulation has the potential to cause a crash or infringe road safety. If the intention of the amendment is that such offences be effectively enforced, I believe it is somewhat misguided. The provisions of the Bill are set against a background, of which he is probably aware, of police forces focusing more sharply on tackling other street crimes. That means that they are focusing less on minor traffic offences. However, our aim is to promote road safety and reduce disruption, so it is important that the provisions are effectively enforced. I know that hon. Members have had time to examine the signs with which we wish to improve enforcement, and I am glad that the full technicolour diagrams assisted the Committee, although we shall rap the printers' knuckles for some of them being redder than others—a bit like Labour Members—and we shall get that sorted for future production.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

The explanatory notes read:

''Contraventions which would lead to licence endorsement may not be added to the list of moving traffic contraventions.''

Unless I have missed it, that does not appear in the Bill. If the Minister can tell me that I have missed it, I shall happily shut up and sit down. My concern that the statement in the explanatory notes was not fully translated into the Bill gave rise to my amendment.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I can assure my hon. Friend that it is in the Bill: he should refer to page 73. I am glad for some assistance on that. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised the issue of5 police enforcing various measures. The Metropolitan police had to use the box junction enforcement in 2003 on 169 occasions. Transport for London, in a pilot monitoring scheme in preparation for the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, observed 33 contraventions at four sites in only six hours, which shows that there are many such contraventions. The police are somewhat pressed when it comes to enforcement, which reinforces the case for civil enforcement officers to take some of the load off the police.

The Bill would allow the police and civil enforcement officers to enforce moving offences. That has been decided after consultation on the regulations that were considered the most appropriate. At present, in London if a local authority applies for an order, the police would not be able to enforce it, but regulations under the Bill would allow that to happen. The police or the civil enforcement officers could enforce the provisions outside London. A person could not be fined by both for the same offences, but either could issue a fixed penalty notice for similar, non-endorsable offences listed in paragraph 10 of schedule 7.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Was not the Minister saying in response to the debate on clause 68 that he was against a dual system running at the same time where a person could suffer a penalty enforced by the police or by a civil enforcement officer?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If I appeared to say that, it was not what I intended and the record will show that I did not say it. I said that people should not be able to be fined for the same offence by both. They should not be able to receive a fixed penalty and a penalty from the civil enforcement officer. It must be one or the other. Equally, one or the other in most cases would be able to impose a fine where that is appropriate.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) spoke about bus lanes—he is not in his place but I am sure he will read the Hansard report of the debate—and that is a matter entirely for local authorities. They will set out who could use the bus lanes and at what times. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of shared car use. Hon. Members expressed interest in it and a pilot is being conducted in Leeds, enforced by the police, which takes up a lot of their manpower. To spread such a scheme throughout the rest of the country would be difficult and it would be hard to enforce by using cameras. I am

told that one lady with a baby strapped in the back of her car was stopped three times because neither the camera nor a police officer at the side of the road could easily see the situation.

In Committee and outside it, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has rightly raised cycling matters, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. The mandatory cycle lanes that are bounded by a solid white line, indicated by the cycle lane sign and backed by a traffic regulation order under sections 1, 6 or 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, are enforceable, but I understand that those with the broken line are not. Parking in a mandatory cycle lane is also open to civil enforcement under the Bill; its course is an offence under sections 5, 8 or 11 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman will find the information that he wants in schedule 7, paragraphs 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(b). The offence of parking on a cycle track is also subject to civil enforcement under the Bill, in schedule 7, paragraphs 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(h). In the case of the hon. Gentleman's authority, these will be enforceable offences.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I remind the Minister that I asked a specific question: what is the definition of cycle tracks in part 1, schedule 7 paragraph 3(2)(g) and 4(2)(h)? Does it include cycle lanes and the advance stop line facilities?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The cycle track is separate and has a different definition. It will usually be a designated area for cycling, although it may include pedestrians, whereas a cycle lane usually runs in association with the highway. That was what I was just explaining in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. If the hon. Gentleman wants a further legalistic definition, we can provide him with that for a little light bedside reading.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will the Minister confirm that the offence of cycling the wrong way along a one-way street would be covered by the provision? Otherwise, there would seem to be a certain inequity. I speak as someone with an interest in that issue—my wife was mown down by a cyclist travelling the wrong way along a one-way street. I hope that the Minister can confirm that there will be a level playing field in that respect.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes. There is some understandable annoyance in relation to cyclists. It seems to be a particular problem in London, where some cyclists—a minority—seem to think that the usual traffic laws do not apply to them and will, for instance, go through red lights. I have seen some of my colleagues nearly mown down on Bridge street, crossing to Parliament street, by cyclists charging through. Road traffic laws apply to cyclists as they do to everyone else, and I understand that the provisions of the clause would be enforceable in that respect.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but how can there be enforcement? As I understand it, the schedule that we will discuss later says that a cycle cannot be stopped.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

In cases in which cyclists could not be stopped, the offences would have to be taken up by

a police officer. That is an important issue, and I shall look into the minute detail, rather than hurrying through an answer now. More detail would help the Committee in its deliberations. A police officer would be able to stop someone, but the civil enforcement officer might not be able to do so.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

On that point, we would all like to see cyclists behaving more safely on the roads. The other evening, when I was travelling in an urban area, I counted 23 cyclists, of whom only six had proper red lights that shone permanently on the back of the bike. Most had no lights at all; some had strobe lights or lights that went out when the cyclists were stationary. Can that also be sorted out by penalty offences? It would be in the interests of cyclists to display lights at night to give motorists more of a chance of seeing them.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The right hon. Gentleman is right. Bicycles should be lit properly, not only in the interests of other people on the road, but in the interests of the person sitting on the bicycle. Some cyclists think that the fact that they can see is sufficient, but it is important, because they are vulnerable in traffic, that they are also seen. It is probably more important than when one is in a motor vehicle.

Such offences are not covered by the clause, but they are important in the enforcement of general safety on the road. Having said that, I hope that the Committee will resist the amendments.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am sorry that the adjournment over lunch has resulted in the Minister losing sight of one of the points that was made by the Metropolitan police. When they were first consulted on the subject, they took the view that they would be happy with civil enforcement, but then realised that their own traffic warden service and community support officers could be used to enforce moving-traffic offences. The Metropolitan police, their traffic wardens and their support officers should be given the first chance of ensuring that such offences can be enforced.

The Metropolitan police said in their letter that because there is no proposal to change the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, their traffic wardens would be in an inferior position to civil enforcement officers employed by the local authority in relation to enforcement. Do the Government really intend that?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I thought that I had made this clear, but let me make it even clearer. Under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, boroughs can pass a resolution in their authorities that enables them to enforce the particular listed offences. That relates to matters such as box junctions, right turns, one-way streets and so on. However, the police would then not have the powers to enforce those offences. I was saying that the Bill allows regulations to be made for dual enforcement that applies in and outside London. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman and the Metropolitan police, in response to the document with which they provided us.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful for that explanation. I move on to one other issue that is still causing me concern, which is reasonableness. We referred to it in an earlier debate. As I understand the annual report of the parking adjudication service, the service has relied heavily on the guidance set out by the Government on decriminalised parking enforcement as a reason for being able to decide that if cases are brought unreasonably and there are extenuating circumstances, local authorities should take account of those circumstances, although, according to the letter of the law, they are not required so to do. The adjudication service relies on Government guidance in order to introduce some common sense into that regime.

I am not aware of the Minister having issued, or being prepared to issue, guidance on civil enforcement of the other offences in the schedule. I should be grateful if he would indicate what will happen on that. Otherwise, I can see that there will be an easier regime for local authorities in respect of parking, and a different one for moving traffic offences.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That is a reasonable point. We want these offences to be imposed reasonably, because what matters is not only the imposition of the offence, but whether that achieves the objective, which is a better flow of traffic. This is not about fining people or imposing offences, but about getting traffic moving. We shall ensure that such matters are set out clearly in the guidance on the way in which civil enforcement officers should work.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister refers to guidance. For clarification, perhaps he could tell us which part of the Bill sets up that guidance or tell us the time scale for issuing it and under which powers it will be issued. I should be grateful if he would answer that point at some stage.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I will ensure that the answer is provided to the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister. There is still much unease outside the House of Commons about the civil enforcement of moving traffic offences. There has been limited use of that in London, and the Bill proposes that it should be extended throughout the country. Of all the amendments to clause 69, I shall press to a vote amendment No. 138, which would remove the permission for moving traffic contraventions to be subject to civil enforcement. However, I shall not press to a vote amendment No. 136. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 138, in

page 41, leave out line 25.—[Mr. Chope.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Schedule 7 - Road traffic contraventions

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I want to ask the Minister about the most contentious provisions in the schedule, which are those relating to the box junction markings. We have been given a splendid photograph of a box junction marking, but most motorists would regard it as unrealistic. Many box junctions are only partially marked, as the paint has been removed either in whole or in part. It is often impossible to know whether one is on a box junction until one is there. What will happen when box junction markings are not clear or when the weight of traffic makes it impossible to see the box junction in advance? The problem is that, although police officers can use their discretion, cameras cannot.

I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear in the previous debate that it will be impossible under paragraph 10 to introduce any offence that involves obligatory endorsement. That includes an offence of parking within the area of a pedestrian crossing, and that reassurance was welcome. What other traffic signs does the Minister think could be added in future under the powers in paragraph 10?

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

If the hon. Gentleman has not done it, he would benefit from doing the Institute of Advanced Motorists test. Many of the issues are covered in it.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I passed my Institute of Advanced Motorists test in 1991 and have maintained my membership since then. I will not make comparisons between the hon. Gentleman and me.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I accept that, and say, ''Good for him.'' Other people should do the test. However, if the hon. Gentleman thinks back to when he was taking the test, he will remember that it covers many issues, including keeping proper distance from the car in front, and it helps drivers to see what is happening in front of them.

As with all junctions, if people treat box junctions properly, they should not get trapped in them.

I wish to reflect on our earlier discussion and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that we debated under amendment No. 196. My judgment is that his concerns can be dealt with under schedule 7. By amending part 4 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, we can decriminalise the offences that he described in a designated bay in an off-road car park. Section 52(1) of that Act deals with motorists committing fraud by altering tickets and so on, and we would not want to decriminalise that. Will the Minister consider the possibility of tabling an amendment to schedule 7 or an additional new clause to meet the concerns of my hon. Friend?

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I do not seek to repeat anything that my hon. Friend said. Suffice it to say that if we can reduce the work load in magistrates courts, the entire criminal justice system, as well as the traffic system, will benefit. I am sure that this pro-motorist Minister, in a pro-motorist Government, will want to continue his brave record of demonstrating how pro-motorist he is in term of fairness and equity. We look forward to that with anticipation.

I want to raise the issue of rat runs, and I will phrase my previous question more helpfully. One of the traffic signs not included in the list in schedule 7 is the access only sign. Rat runs are a major problem in our road system; across Nottinghamshire, they are a severe problem. I strongly share the county council's view that an access only sign could be used in conjunction with a camera on certain rat runs—in the worst-affected parts of Nottingham, 200 people an hour use rat runs to pass through a residential area. That could give local authorities a new and imaginative power to control rat runs. If such a system were deemed worthy of future consideration, could it be added to the Bill, either now or later?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

My hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Bassetlaw have raised an important point about the parking regulations under the schedule. We need to examine that carefully rather than make a knee-jerk reaction. Some important issues were raised and I will ensure that they are considered.

The hon. Member for Christchurch raised the issue of a box junction not being properly marked. The defence would of course be—and this would apply to any traffic offence—that the box was not properly marked. However, if moving camera images are used in connection with the offence, they will show whether the box was properly marked. Therefore, if it were not, the defence would be strong, and I am sure that the adjudicator would throw out such a case and possibly even offer compensation.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government had any particular signs in mind. We do not at the moment, although just as I was thinking that, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw came up with an example of what we could add to the list. Part 10 gives us the flexibility to include any new signs or even variations to signs in the future.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Do I correctly interpret that to mean that the Department would consider a coherent case put to the Minister by Nottinghamshire county council?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We would certainly consider that possibility and think about whether the sign could be included. However, enforcing the signs using cameras could cause problems, because we would have to define who was getting access to premises that may be a considerable distance down a road, and who was going all the way through. This is certainly one of the issues that concern local authorities. Using rat runs may not be a congestion issue, but it is very much a road safety issue on side roads, especially for children who are travelling to school and for elderly people crossing the road. People trying to get to work and driving at great speed down roads that were not intended for heavy traffic or fast vehicles can cause a major problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I shall now suspend the sitting for a quick meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move,

That—

That the Resolution of the Committee of 26th January be amended, by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) 'except on Tuesday 10th February, when it shall meet at 2.30 pm'.

The Committee has made good progress, which is testimony to the working of hon. Members and the usual channels, which have operated well. The Government were available this evening and on Tuesday morning, if appropriate, for consideration of the Bill. However, to help you, Miss Begg, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has a number of new clauses at the end of the Bill, we are happy to adjust when the Committee will sit. Instead of sitting at the usual time on Tuesday morning, we will sit in the afternoon. I hope that that will help both to achieve proper scrutiny and to accommodate the individual needs of the Chair and members of the Committee.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I welcome the Minister's remarks. As he said, the usual channels have worked well and we have made good progress in giving the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves. I expect that we shall be able to finish our deliberations on Tuesday and I will be surprised if we do not. Those people who expect to monitor our progress next Thursday will be able have a day out instead. That is my expectation. When we finish on Tuesday, we shall be able to say that we have as a Committee performed our task diligently. That shows that it was sensible to allow three weeks in the first instance, to see how things would go. We now have the extra flexibility that we would not have enjoyed if we had started one week later.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

As I have a number of new clauses and would not have been available on Tuesday morning, I thank the Programming Sub-Committee for accommodating my wishes. I look forward to the debate on Tuesday afternoon.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The usual channels have been most efficacious on this occasion. The extra time is most welcome, and I am sure that we shall complete our deliberations expeditiously at the end of Tuesday.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I should also like to thank the Minister for being so accommodating.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

There is an outbreak of consensus on the Committee. I am glad that we have accommodated my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. Without wanting to give away any secrets in the privacy of this meeting—I am not being ironic—I will not let on that the hon. Member for Christchurch has for the first time voted with his party for a programme motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

That the Resolution of the Committee of 26th January be amended, by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) 'except on Tuesday 10th February, when it shall meet at 2.30 pm'.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 - Civil enforcement areas and

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

An issue arises out of our earlier discussion of representations by the Metropolitan Police Service. It said that civil enforcement penalties were significantly higher than fixed penalties. That is somewhat anomalous, and I wonder whether the Minister could comment.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I noticed that anomaly. It seems that some penalties are higher under the civil enforcement regime. However, it is difficult to address the issue in the Bill, and we may have to revisit it in other legislation.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We could surely address it by amending the Bill to say that civil enforcement penalties cannot be greater than fixed penalties. The Minister might not like that, but it would be one way of ensuring a consistent approach. Perhaps the Minister could think about that.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

No amendment has been tabled to that effect, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to table one later in consideration of the Bill, I dare say that we could debate it and test what could be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 71 - Power to require authority to

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in

page 42, line 3, leave out 'require' and insert 'invite'.

This is a simple but far-reaching amendment. It would enable local authorities to be invited to set up a civil enforcement penalty regime, but it would not enable the Government to require them so to do. A lot of concern has been expressed about the requirement that local authorities should set up such a regime, even if they do not want to. About 80 local authorities have already engaged in the process, but why should they be compelled to do so? The Select Committee on Transport and the Local Government Association are concerned about that.

The regulatory impact assessment deals with the balance of costs and benefits, stating:

''Given that civil enforcement is designed to be self-financing it is considered that the benefits of compelling authorities to take on such powers outweigh the costs.

However, the burden of civil enforcement may not be self-financing for some local authorities, particularly those in more rural areas, which may incur disproportionate costs if they take over a civil enforcement job from the police. The regulatory impact assessment continues:

''If cost is an issue in any particular case it will be possible for an authority to raise the matter in making its representations to the national authority in response to a formal indication that the issue of a Notice is being contemplated.''

Obviously, they will be able to raise the issue, but if we do not amend the clause, the Government will still be able to compel them to set up a civil enforcement regime.

I believe in local authorities and localism, which is in vogue at the moment, and I wonder whether the Government could accept the amendment in the spirit of localism.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The point of the clause is to give the national authority a reserve power to compel authorities to apply for parking enforcement powers, whereas the amendment would allow the national authority to ''invite'' them to do so.

Effective parking enforcement is essential to reduce congestion and ensure road safety but, for good reason, enforcement of such offences is not a high priority for the police. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, more than 80 authorities outside London have already acquired decriminalised parking enforcement powers under the Road Traffic Act 1991. They must all be thanking him for bringing in that Act—we find so many references to it. Credit where it is due, I say.

The 1991 Act, which was introduced against a background of the police giving a lower priority to enforcement, required all London authorities to take on decriminalised parking enforcement powers by July 1994. However, we are concerned that some authorities are slow in facing up to reality. They should seriously be considering the introduction of civil parking enforcement powers in their areas. That is why we feel

that the reserve power to compel authorities to apply for parking enforcement powers is needed. We recognise that authorities require sufficient time to prepare to take on parking enforcement powers—about 18 months—and we would certainly ensure that the commencement date for the enforcement powers in any notice to apply is realistic.

Subsections (3) and (5) provide for a dialogue between the national authority and the local authority before any notice is issued. I agree, to a point, with the hon. Gentleman about localism: where possible, we should allow local authorities the greatest freedom to act on behalf of the people whom they represent, but localism does not mean opting out of responsibilities. Any future Government may want to look into a situation in which an authority is not facing up to its responsibilities. I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I hear what the Minister says but, as I understand it, local authorities currently work very closely with the police—there is a lot of discussion, and there is partnership. The Government must believe in partnership between local authorities and the police, because they have set up all sorts of safety partnerships. If they intervene and say that they will force local authorities to take on that responsibility when they do not wish to do so, it may be damaging and burdensome to those authorities. In Dorset, there was quite a long lead-in period and long discussion with the police, which enabled some authorities to take over civil enforcement more quickly than others. It all depends on local circumstances. If the Government really believe that the changes are in the interests of local authorities, it is rather sad that they do not trust them.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I have listened to the debate with great interest, and I find the hon. Gentleman very persuasive. Is not local democracy at the heart of his argument? If we are to elect people locally to represent a local community, should not they be free to take decisions without imposition from the central authority?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Absolutely. If the police say, ''We can't carry on enforcing parking in a particular locality,'' the people in that locality should have the option of saying to their local council, ''Well, let's take that responsibility on ourselves. Let's keep it local.'' That is the burden of the amendment, and I would like to put it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Clause 72 - Civil enforcement orders

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 192, in

page 42, line 40, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 43.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 193, in

page 42, line 43, at end insert—

'(2A) No person shall be employed as a civil enforcement officer unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We had a discussion earlier about the qualifications of traffic officers. If civil enforcement officers are to be given this wide range of responsibilities they should be properly qualified. The Government were sympathetic to the point that was made in the earlier debate about the need for Criminal Record Bureau checks, and the fact that traffic officers should have a current driving licence and, therefore, a knowledge and understanding of the highway code and the reality of being a driver. Obviously, the Highways Agency is under direct Government control, and the Government have already given assurances that traffic officers will have to have those qualifications in order to become traffic officers under the provisions of part 1.

The situation in relation to local government is rather different. We know from the record that there is an enormous amount of injustice at the moment in the conduct of local authority civil enforcement officers, as they will be called under this regime. Much of the need for appeals could be removed if they were better qualified in the first place. That is what amendment No. 193 is designed to ensure. Later in the Bill, we talk about double parking and parking a particular distance from the pavement. If one parks further than that distance, one will be subject to a civil penalty. It is important that the people who are looking at that should be able to exercise discretion and common sense, based on the fact that they have some experience of driving.

I am lucky enough to drive a car with power steering, but many of my elderly constituents do not. The measure is not designed to discriminate particularly against elderly women, but it could have that impact in practice unless the enforcement is carried out by people who have some common sense and knowledge of exactly how difficult it can be for somebody who is perhaps slightly infirm to get their car parallel to the kerb, when there are many vehicles there. I am concerned that we shall have a civil enforcement regime in which the people doing the enforcement are not sufficiently au fait with the realities of life for motorists.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned box junctions. He and I, as members of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, know the rules, but we also need to have regard to the realities. We are much more likely to get others to do that if they have a driving licence, and if we know that they are responsible people who are not known to the CRB as a result of having been in difficulties with the law.

Amendment No. 192 is a probing amendment to test why the Government believe that civil enforcement officers should not be directly employed by and accountable to local authorities.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Under the clause, existing parking attendants become civil enforcement officers. Currently, they are employed either directly by authorities or by companies that undertake enforcement for them. Authorities can decide for themselves which option to choose, taking into account best value considerations as legislation requires. I was interested that the hon. Member for Christchurch spoke mainly about the second amendment rather than the lead one. I think I know why. The provisions that he is trying to overturn are those that he introduced in 1991.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Under-Secretary talks about the lead amendment as though I had chosen it as the lead amendment. He knows that the order in which amendments are debated is an issue for the Chair rather than for the person who proposes an amendment.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Indeed it is, Miss Begg. However, it is usual that the lead amendment is spoken to first. I merely noted that the hon. Gentleman gave less emphasis to it. As he will know, under the Road Traffic Act 1991, authorities were compelled to subject enforcement activities to competitive tendering under the legislation then in force, so I find it rather curious that we have his amendment before us. However, it has been useful to have the debate.

Amendment No. 193 would require a civil enforcement officer to be someone who is the

''holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau''.

I see no reason why an officer should necessarily have a driving licence. Such people would not have to drive in connection with the work—they could cycle, walk or take public transport—so they would not necessarily need driving licences. However, I think that it is right that they be properly trained and that they have the skills to carry out the job. The hon. Gentleman will know that circular 1/95 on guidance on parking enforcement outside London, which sprang out of his own legislation, contains clear guidance about the training of parking attendants. We shall ensure that the guidance that relates to the Bill covers the role of enforcement officers including their training. We will echo the provisions of paragraph 7.6 of circular 1/95 that local authorities should ensure that enforcement officers, including supervisors and managers, should have the training necessary to provide accurate, fair and consistent enforcement. The point is well made and important.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

We have created a category of people who have responsibility for exercising wide powers, all of which are to do with such things as box junctions, road traffic signs and the behaviour of vehicles. The easiest way to ensure that somebody knows what those mean is to require them to pass a test—at least the written part of the driving test. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that somebody who has not taken the test is unaware of most of that.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I agree with that up to a point. Obviously, somebody who has taken the driving test will be more familiar with general matters on the road, although I admit to the Committee that although I can barely swim, I have taught many people to swim, including my children, who are all excellent swimmers. One does not necessarily have to be able to do something to be familiar with it and to know what needs to be done.

The scope of the clause is quite limited and proper training will be given. The provision that officers should have a driving licence is unnecessary. However, the Bill will enable civil enforcement officers to report moving contraventions, and we expect that most such contraventions will be detected using cameras. We certainly do not envisage officers going out in vehicles to detect moving contraventions. They will not have powers to stop vehicles: in fact, clause 74(4) specifically prohibits the conferral of power to stop vehicles.

The civil enforcement officers' role will not be akin to that of the Highways Agency traffic officers: they will not be able to stop vehicles and would not normally come into contact with the occupants of vehicles. Nevertheless, civil enforcement officers are in a position of trust, so we should, of course, expect them to act honestly and fairly. Local authorities must make sure of that when they issue penalty charge notices or report vehicles for moving contraventions.

There has been an outbreak of consensus on the matter of the CRB check, and I should like to give it further thought. I do not think that there is a need to put that in the Bill—we have not already done so for traffic officers, as that that will be in the regulations. Civil enforcement officers are in a position of trust—not to the same extent as a traffic officer and certainly not to the same extent as a police officer—so we need people of the highest quality to do the work. They generally do a good job, although some in some areas they do not appear to do so. The public need proper reassurance about what sort of people we employ to do the work. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch accepts my points, and I guarantee that I shall reconsider the issue. Although I do not think that it needs to go in to the Bill, we could certainly consider whether the matter is necessary for the guidance.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister. He obviously understands that there is an issue here. I hope that when he considers what course he should take, he will look at the most recent report of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. That report sets out vivid examples of wholly unreasonable behaviour on the part of parking attendants. In the latest newsletter, the figures for April to September in Lambeth show that 1,292 appeals were received, of which only 285 were refused. In other words, more than 1,000 appeals have been allowed or withdrawn: that is an incredibly high percentage success rate for appellants, incredibly burdensome for the adjudication service and absolutely oppressive for the people who have had to go through the process to get justice. Furthermore, for every person who appeals, I suspect that 10 or 20 others hang their heads in shame and say, ''I just can't be bothered with it, I'll just pay up, but I

hate the whole system.'' Anything that the Minister could do to restore more respect for the system would be welcome. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 - Civil enforcement: setting the level of charges

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in

schedule 9, page 79, line 5, after 'to' insert

'contraventions on or adjacent to'.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 72 to 74.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

These are small, tidying-up amendments and do not affect any part of the policy.

Amendments made: No. 72, in

schedule 9, page 79, line 6, leave out 'other roads' and insert '—

(i) parking places provided or authorised by such authorities, or

(ii) contraventions on or adjacent to roads other than GLA roads,'.

No. 73, in

schedule 9, page 80, line 10, after 'to' insert

'contraventions on or adjacent to'.

No. 74, in

schedule 9, page 80, line 12, leave out 'other roads' and insert '—

(i) parking places provided or authorised by such authorities, or

(ii) contraventions on or adjacent to roads other than GLA roads.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 74 - Notification of penalty charge

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I have a question about subsection (4), which states:

''The regulations may not confer power to stop vehicles.''

That is an important provision, but does the Minister believe that it is compatible with the approach taken in the London Local Authorities Bill, which gives local authority officers the power to stop vehicles for the purpose of testing their exhaust emissions? I believe that the power to stop vehicles on the highway should be exercised only by the police. If the Minister agrees, which would explain subsection (4), will he explain whether the Government have a different attitude to the other Bill or whether they will amend it?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It is not for us to discuss the London Local Authorities Bill, although for someone to test an exhaust, they must be able to stop the vehicle, just as the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency needs to stop vehicles to carry out weight and other tests. That cannot be done on the run.

As we have said before, many of the offences that we are discussing will be enforced by cameras, and it is inappropriate for civil enforcement officers to have the

power to stop vehicles for parking offences, yellow box offences and no-right-turn offences. It is a matter of finding measures that are appropriate to the circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Immobilisation of vehicle where

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in

clause 75, page 45, line 2, leave out '15 minutes have' and insert '1 hour has'.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 54, in

clause 75, page 45, line 5, leave out '15 minutes have' and insert '1 hour has'.

No. 81, in

clause 75, page 45, line 18, at end insert—

'(5A) Nothing in those regulations shall exempt a traffic officer, a local traffic authority or any person employed by or acting for them from liability to the owner of a vehicle where the affixation of an immobilisation device has caused any damage thereto.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 would change the time that must expire before wheel-clamping can take place from a 15-minute to a 60-minute minimum. Amendment No. 81 would make it clear that the person who did the wheel-clamping was responsible for any damage caused to the vehicle as a result.

I tabled the amendments in the knowledge that they differ from the guidance that the previous Government issued in 1995. I was not a Member of the House then but, as I understand it, in the decriminalised parking enforcement guidance, 15 minutes was regarded as the minimum period before wheel-clamping could take place. Since then, however, enforcement by some local authorities has become rather unreasonable. If a vehicle is not obstructing the highway—that is already excluded—but is parked by a meter and has overstayed its time, why should it be clamped so quickly, with the consequence of a substantial penalty and, perhaps, substantial delay for its owner or user?

There was probably no parliamentary debate on the original insertion of 15 minutes in the 1995 guidance. However, this debate gives us a chance to think that through and to consider whether and how it can be made compatible with the rules relating to the removal of vehicles. Increasingly, vehicles are removed when they are parked in parking spaces in breach of the regulations and they are certainly taken away to the pound in breach of the guidance that was set out. If the Minister, in the context of the debate on clause 75, has any views on that, I would welcome them. If a vehicle is taken away from the location where it was parked, it has been immobilised as far as the owner is concerned. That quite often takes place now when the vehicle has been in the location for less than 15 minutes, let alone an hour.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

There is one point that could usefully be added to my hon. Friend's persuasive argument just in case the Minister has not yet been 100 per cent. persuaded. The Bill is about traffic management and obstructions. Fortunately, I have never been wheel-clamped, but I have watched the process. If there is anything that clutters up the road for a while, it is people turning up in a large van, getting out equipment and generally shuffling about to put wheel clamps on. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether research is being done as to how long it normally takes before someone whose car has received an overstay ticket comes back, realises what he has done and moves on. I should have thought that whereas some people could not care less and are prepared to stay there all day because they are content to flout the law, others quite often overstay by a few minutes when the period of 15 minutes is clearly indicated. In the past, it has been realised that one can overstay by five or 10 minutes here or there. I simply wonder how many people do not come back until more than an hour later.

If the Minister wants to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, he needs to be able to give us the information that I have requested. Otherwise, he would do everyone a favour by stopping these vehicles parking, as they usually do, right in the middle of a carriageway while someone's car is clamped when it is parked next to the kerb.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am becoming fascinated by how the hon. Member for Christchurch is distancing himself from his past. He will recall that this 15-minute grace period was provided in section 70 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. He told us this morning there was detailed scrutiny of that Act in Committee, and I am sure that there was. I was not a Member of the House at the time, so I do not know, but he may even have defended this.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clamping of vehicles has incurred a penalty charge and is used as an additional sanction by some authorities to deter unlawful parking. It is especially useful in areas like London where demand for parking is particularly high. I can tell the hon. Member for Christchurch that in this Government's fight-back for liberal Britain, his amendment would reduce the effectiveness of the enforcement, thereby reducing the turnover of parking spaces, which in turn would reduce people's access to parking, especially where demand for spaces is highest.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the effect of the amendment, which would favour those motorists who abuse parking restrictions and penalise the honest motorist, such as people who want to drop off an elderly aunt or a vulnerable disabled relative, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said. Those people may not find parking spaces because someone is hogging the space, to the detriment of other road users.

The hon. Member for Christchurch asked if we knew how long people stay after their parking time has expired; I am not aware of any research into that. However, if there were lax enforcement, we could be sure that the spaces would be filled all day, every day, by those who park to the detriment of honest, decent people who want to park legally and in consideration of other road users.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

As time goes by, I get slower at spotting some of the absurdities that come flowing across the Committee Room. I wonder if I understood the Minister correctly? Did he say that if we were to accept the amendments, more people would be stuck in spaces that would therefore not be available to other people? If that is so, could the Minister tell me how clamping a car creates a parking space?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It creates a serious disincentive to leaving a car in a space for a long period. It does not have the effect at that particular moment, but the thought of being clamped is a heavy disincentive to people who might overstay their time in a parking bay.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I thought the Minister might say that. As I said, I have not been clamped but I know people who have. In London, if someone overstays their time by 20 minutes and arrives to find their car clamped, they have to go across the city, stand in a queue for a while, talk nicely to somebody and pay their money. After they have twiddled their thumbs for a bit, someone turns up to remove the clamp. How does that create additional spaces?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I stand by what I said a moment ago: it creates a disincentive to people to overstay. Generally, few people overstay because of the fear of being clamped. If we allowed people to stay as long as they wanted, all the spaces would be filled by the inconsiderate people who grab the spaces first, to the detriment of a large number of others, especially vulnerable people or those who cannot walk very far. Such people may want to park in a certain space but they are blocked by fit and able people who cannot be bothered to move their car at the appropriate time.

In respect of amendment No. 81, the enforcement staff responsible for clamping already have a duty of care to vehicle owners. Regulations under clause 75 will not seek to undermine or limit that duty. We expect enforcement staff to take great care to ensure that a vehicle is not damaged as a consequence of being immobilised. If the owner of a vehicle believes that that duty has not been observed, the matter can be considered by the courts under existing legislation. I hope that in the light of that clarification, the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment at the end of this debate, but I want to put it on the record that local authorities have behaved unreasonably in many cases although standards have been laid down with the best of intentions. The Minister has not addressed my concern, and I can understand why, as it is not necessarily within the context of the clause. I am anxious about people having their vehicles removed when they have been parked for only a short period, but I accept that on a

strict interpretation of the clause, that is probably out of scope. There is a real problem there.

The Minister will know from having read about some of the cases that have been the subject of adjudication in London that the London local authorities thought for a time that it was perfectly reasonable for there to be a period of four hours between payment of the penalty and release of the clamp. It needed an adjudicator to decide that that was thoroughly unreasonable. That is an example of the way in which some local authorities have been behaving in a high-handed and totally counter-productive fashion. The consequence was that when someone returned to their car a few minutes after the time had expired, the car, instead of being moved, was on the highway occupying a parking space for up to five more hours. I hear what the Minister says, but I hope that he will look at that problem. At the moment, clamping does not seem to be the subject of any control at all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Representations and appeals

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister said in response to a question about the cost of appeals that normally there were no costs. Subsection (5) states:

''The regulations may include provision authorising an adjudicator to make an order for the payment of costs and expenses by a party to an appeal in such circumstances as may be specified.''

Obviously, that is something that the Committee has no control over because it will be subject to regulations. But this is an opportunity to ask the Minister what he has in mind in relation to regulations, including such provisions.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

This clause meets some of the hon. Gentleman's earlier requests. In certain circumstances, the adjudicator could make an order for the payment of costs and expenses where he thought it appropriate.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Is the Minister therefore saying that he will bring forward regulations to that effect? If so, can he assure us that those regulations will be even-handed between the parties to an adjudication? Will they cover the situation in which, as happens frequently in London, the respondent to the appeal, the local authority, does not contest it and does not even put in an appearance? Will the provision cover that situation, perhaps with an automatic award of costs against the local authority?

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Does the definition of adjudication incorporate magistrates' courts?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause seeks to replicate what is in the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. If the hon. Gentleman is not familiar with those, it may be helpful if I read them out.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am about as familiar with them as the Minister is.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Indeed, so I shall read them out. Regulation 12 says:

''The adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but may, subject to paragraph (2), make such an order—(a) against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn his appeal or a local authority that has consented to an appeal being allowed) if he is of the opinion that the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable; or (b) against the local authority, where he considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.''

I hope that that is helpful. There is no automatic award of costs; the adjudicator will decide.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Adjudicators

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in

page 46, line 32, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 34.

Amendment No. 67 removes subsection 3(b), which would require the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to set out the procedure to be followed by authorities when appointing adjudicators. The Government recently announced their intention to create a new independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which will take over the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for the judicial appointments process. It is no longer appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to make such regulations; procedures for those responsibilities will be decided by the Judicial Appointments Commission. Events have overtaken us so we want to remove that part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Events have not quite overtaken us. They are coming up rapidly behind us, but there is still a Lord Chancellor. Until such time as the position has been done away with and a judicial arrangement is in place, the status quo remains. If the Bill becomes an Act, and provides for a judicial quango to have responsibilities, what will happen if that quango does not exist?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, and perhaps I should have said more. The requirement for the Lord Chancellor's consent on appointments, which will also transfer to the commission, will be sufficient guarantee of the probity of the appointment of civil enforcement adjudicators, because that consent will depend on the normal requirements of fairness, transparency and openness. It is not necessary to prescribe the detailed procedures in regulations. I understand that matters are in hand so the amendment will be effective.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister said that it would not matter if the amendment were made or not because one could fall back on reasonableness, or whatever word he used. If we agree to the Government amendment and the Lord Chancellor remains and a quango is not established, will the Government be able

to do what they like rather than having to refer matters to the Lord Chancellor? Is that what we are being asked to agree to? The only check and balance would be that someone behaved reasonably. The Government could do whatever they liked because there would be no sanctions in the Bill.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

May I repeat my previous question about the definition of ''adjudicator''? Could that be defined as meaning magistrates court?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The simple answer is no. The magistrates court will deliberate over the issues in the case of police penalty charges, but the adjudicator will do so in the case that we are discussing. If the status quo outlined by the hon. Member for Spelthorne remains, the adjudicator would be appointed with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

This gets better and better. The Minister is now telling us that, having removed a reference to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chancellor would still be responsible. I hate excessively long legislation, and I wonder why the provision was included in the first place if the Lord Chancellor would act in any case.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Oh dear. The hon. Gentleman has rumbled us. What we are saying is that we will be covered in both circumstances with the amendment. What was in the Bill was perhaps a case of belt and braces.

Amendment agreed to,

Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78 - Enforcement of penalty charges

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The clause gives the Minister the opportunity to bring us up to date on the Government's thinking about the mass of unenforced motoring and parking fines and about how the clause will work if it provides for a penalty to be enforced simply by a further penalty? The Home Secretary has said that under no circumstances can anyone who defiantly refuses to pay outstanding debts for motoring and other offences be sent to prison. How will justice be done, therefore, by those law-abiding people who fall foul of civil enforcement provisions but who know jolly well that many other people see them as just another part of the process to ignore and continue to act with impunity. Irrespective of what is set down in the legislation, enforcement often never occurs, particularly when the cost is greater than the amount recovered.

The Minister will know that the RAC Foundation has written to us, drawing attention to the fact that a speed camera can catch someone going a few miles an hour over the limit but that that does not deter the estimated 1.5 million in what it calls the motoring underclass. How will the clause tackle the problem of that lawless motoring underclass?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister said that I had rumbled him and he has spurred me on to look even more

carefully at the Bill. Why are there no Government amendments to the clause? Subsection (1) states:

''The Lord Chancellor may make regulations''.

However, subsection (3) states that the

''Lord Chancellor may by order make provision'',

and subsection (4) adds:

''Any such order may make such incidental and supplementary provision . . . as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate''.

Where are the Government amendments removing the references to the Lord Chancellor? The Government were so keen to remove them before, but they are perfectly content to leave them now.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.