|
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): 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.
Mr. Redwood: I should also like to thank the Minister for being so accommodating.
Mr. Jamieson: 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,
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Civil enforcement areas and
enforcement authorities
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Chope: 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.
Mr. Jamieson: 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.
Mr. Chope: 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.
Mr. Jamieson: 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.
Column Number: 291
Clause 71
Power to require authority to
apply for civil enforcement powers
Mr. Chope: 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.
Mr. Jamieson: 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
Column Number: 292
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.
Mr. Chope: 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: 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?
Mr. Chope: 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.
Division No. 44]
AYES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Marsden, Mr. Paul
Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
NOES
Borrow, Mr. David
Jamieson, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr. Andrew
Ward, Claire
White, Brian
Wright, David
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 293
Clause 72
Civil enforcement orders
3.30 pm
Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 192, in
page 42, line 40, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 43.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 193, in
Mr. Chope: 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.
Column Number: 294
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.
| 
