|
Mr. Jamieson: 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.
Mr. Chope: 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.
Mr. Jamieson: I will ensure that the answer is provided to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Chope: 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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 287
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.
Division No. 43]
AYES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Redwood, Mr. John
Wilshire, Mr. David
NOES
Borrow, Mr. David
Jamieson, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr. Paul
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr. Andrew
Thurso, John
Ward, Claire
White, Brian
Wright, David
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Road traffic contraventions
subject to civil enforcement
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
3 pm
Mr. Chope: 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?
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): 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.
Mr. Chope: 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.
Mr. Miller: 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.
Column Number: 288
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 (Bassetlaw) (Lab): 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?
Mr. Jamieson: 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.
Column Number: 289
John Mann: Do I correctly interpret that to mean that the Department would consider a coherent case put to the Minister by Nottinghamshire county council?
Mr. Jamieson: 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.
The Chairman: I shall now suspend the sitting for a quick meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee.
3.12 pm
Sitting suspended.
3.16 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Jamieson: I beg to move,
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.
Mr. Chope: 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.
Column Number: 290
Brian White: 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.
| 
