Traffic Management Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to his support in the vote.

3 pm

Mr. McNulty: As is clear from the regulatory impact assessment and other matters, details of the fixed penalty notice regime, appeals, fine rates, methods of payment and so on will be made by regulations. A working group of Department for Transport utilities and authorities will consider the matter and make recommendations to Ministers in due course, as I explained in relation to the earlier document that gave us a little road map for proposed regulations, schedules and so on.

We need to prepare the regulations, and work will start as soon as possible, but we want to proceed in a context of agreement, as with other aspects of the Bill. I have some sympathy with all the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), except his conclusion. Within his contribution lies the very reason we want to distinguish between—for want of a better phrase; they are still important—lower offences that will attract the fixed penalty notice regime and more serious offences. That is right and proper. The regulations, which are still to come, will, as the clause states, allow certain offences to be the subject of fixed penalties rather than automatic criminal prosecution. Of course, discussions still need to be carried out with other Departments on where all the moneys will eventually accrue, but I envisage at least an element going to the cost of administration of the fixed penalty regime, although I will probably be berated by another Department for saying so.

I do not accept for one moment that because the fixed penalty is an encumbrance for some people in business—it is self-inflicted if they commit an offence—that all of a sudden every single fixed penalty notice regime that ever existed, from safety cameras all the way through to parking and

Column Number: 207

incorporating what is contained in the Bill, is somehow a revenue-raising scam. That is not the case for these matters, for speed cameras or for most fixed penalty notices. It is said, albeit very politely—such comments are always couched in phrases such as ''Some may suggest'' or ''There are those who think that''—that speed cameras are merely for raising revenue, but the other side of the equation is not presented. Again, in this case as in others, we are not setting up offences or reinforcing those in the 1991 Act with the hope and prayer that people will commit offences. We would far rather the law was not transgressed and that no fixed penalty notices were issued.

John Thurso: I agree with the Minister on speed cameras. One virtue of the speed camera is that it provides incontrovertible proof that the offence took place. Consequently, it is extremely unlikely that there will be a miscarriage of justice. However, as I understand it, it is possible with the sort of offences in the Bill that there may be a much more subjective judgment as to whether an offence has taken place—there is far less proof. Therefore, leaving revenue raising completely to one side, my question is whether justice will actually be served, in that people may simply take the pragmatic approach of paying rather than seeking to clear themselves, because it is so much cheaper.

Mr. McNulty: I accept that, but, in a way, it is a matter for the individuals themselves. I would hope that as a result of our earlier actions in updating the levels of fines, that will not happen when going through the court process, and at least when we are considering them in the context of the regulations.

We must understand that the offences are not simply one-off occasions. I cannot remember the exact figure, but I believe that there are some 1.1 million incursions into our roads and streets every year. In each individual case, people may think, ''I can't be bothered, I might as well just pay the fine'', but if that happens on a recurring basis, the cumulative fixed penalty notices and fines or levies will mount up. The measure is not about putting impediments in front of people but about encouraging good practice and the efficient use of our streets. As I said, most of the offences in this category will be more on the noticing, co-ordination and liaison side, rather than for the far more serious transgressions that will be taken through the courts.

We think that this is the appropriate way to take things forward. There is a series of offences involving due notice given for various things. It will be fairly clear that the operator, for want of a better word, has or has not given due notice as required under the noticing offences. It is not as though one needs a digital camera or CCTV set up over every single incursion into the street to know whether the offences listed in the relevant schedule have been breached. Again, that reinforces why we want to keep very distinct those that are under fixed penalty notice and those that are left to the court. That is why the distinction, which we have discussed, is there. I ask the

Column Number: 208

hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross not to forge an unholy alliance with the official Opposition, but, in true Liberal Democrat tradition—

Mr. Knight: To make a Lib-Lab pact?

Mr. McNulty: No. The right hon. Gentleman should wait. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross should either sit on his hands in true Liberal Democrat tradition, or vote with the Government. There are options.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Division No. 35]

AYES
Borrow, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. David McNulty, Mr. Tony Mann, John
Merron, Gillian Miller, Mr. Andrew White, Brian Wright, David

NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher Knight, Mr. Greg Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John Wilshire, Mr. David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Schedule 4A to the New Roads and

Street Works Act 1991

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Chope: I ask the Minister for clarification. One distinction between schedules 1 and 2 is that in schedule 1 there are offences with a maximum fine at level five, whereas the first three offences specified in schedule 2 carry a maximum fine at only level four. Can the Minister confirm that the other three offences in schedule 2 at the top of page 59 also carry a maximum penalty at level four rather than level five?

Mr. McNulty: As far as I am aware and unless I hear otherwise, they do. During our debate this morning I said that, broadly, those offences that now attract level four fines are the noticing type of offences, as can be seen from much of schedule 2, but those that attract level five fines are more serious and require more than simply just noticing. The first three offences covered by the schedule, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, concern advance notice of certain works, notice of starting date and notice of emergency works. The subsequent offences involve offences under sections 70(6), 74(7B) and 74A(11) of the 1991 Act and are subject to level four penalties, which maintains the split between important but less serious offences—less serious only in terms of the fine maximums they attract—and the others. All the offences in schedule 2 will attract level four fines, as the hon. Member for Christchurch suggested. I am glad that he allowed me to make that point. I commend the schedule to the Committee.

Column Number: 209

Question put, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Division No. 36]

AYES
Borrow, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. David McNulty, Mr. Tony Mann, John
Merron, Gillian Miller, Mr. Andrew White, Brian Wright, David

NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher Knight, Mr. Greg Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John Wilshire, Mr. David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

Schedule 4B to the New Roads and

Street Works Act 1991

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Knight: I seek information from the Minister on the schedule. Paragraphs 4(2) and 5(1) refer to the penalty period and to

''the day on which the notice is given.''

When the Minister draws up the regulations or the guidelines, will he clarify what the words ''notice is given'' mean? Do they mean the date when the notice is issued or the date when the notice is received, or deemed to have been received, by the person alleged to have committed an offence? I hope that it means the latter if the notice is not served personally, because if the notice is issued on, say, Maundy Thursday, the person to whom it is addressed may not receive it until well over a week later because of the Easter holiday.

That takes me to paragraph 6, which refers to a person being served with a fixed penalty notice. What in the regulations or guidance will the Minister say is service? When I had my law practice, we operated under the strict rule that if we were acting on behalf of a plaintiff and were instructed to serve a writ on a defendant, we had to serve the writ. That meant the solicitor or his articled clerk going out, usually at teatime, to the defendant's address and knocking on his door. If his wife answered the door, the solicitor had to ask to see the defendant and, as soon as he saw him, physically touch him with the document. What the defendant then did with the document did not matter: he could throw it away, throw it at the person who had served it or put it under the windscreen wiper of his car. He had been served. The solicitor had touched him with the document and had therefore given him the opportunity to respond to it.

Does service mean that in the schedule? I am becoming increasingly concerned that these days a growing number of bodies seem to think that, if a document is put in a post box with a postage stamp affixed to it, that is service and it is deemed to be operative from the next day. For the last three weeks, I have sent post to my constituents in House of Commons envelopes with a first-class stamp, and they have not received it the following day. In some

Column Number: 210

cases, the post has taken three days to arrive. I cannot see how, when one is alleging that someone has committed an offence, one can simply put the fixed penalty ticket in a letter box and assume that the person receives it the following day: it may take two or three days to arrive. Proof of service should be a requirement of the person issuing the ticket.

One cannot even rely on Departments if one is seeking to serve something through the post. A few years back, I needed to have a motor vehicle document altered, so I posted it to the DVLA in Nottingham, to the address in the phone book. Having heard nothing for five weeks, I telephoned and was told, ''We've left that office. We now occupy new premises.'' I said, ''Surely you've got your post on divert.'' I should have thought that a Department of government would at least have done that, but it had not bothered to do so. The document was lost, and I had to make a declaration. I do not want to hear the Minister say that partnerships and those doing this sort of work should make sure that they read their post every day, because Departments do not do it and do not even notify the public when they change their address.

3.15 pm

 

---

Prepared 3 February 2004