|
Mr. Caborn: On the question of the Secretary of State, they all act on behalf of the Government.
It will be possible to deliver the Olympic and Paralympic games and to implement the requirements of the Olympic transport plan only with the full co-operation of all the different transport authorities responsible for the particular areas. In preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan, it will be necessary for the ODA to consult those local highways authorities, local traffic authorities and street authorities likely to be affected by the implementation of the plan. Each of those authorities will therefore have been involved in its development and will be aware of the demands it would make on them. Therefore, they can plan in advance of its implementation.
We would intend to use only the powers of discretion in clause 10(3) where it is clear that a local highways authority, local traffic authority or street authority was refusing to co-operate and was therefore putting the plan in jeopardy. There may be instances when it will be necessary to direct an authority to implement particular parts of the plan quickly if the timetable for implementation is not to be put at risk.
The need to seek an affirmative resolution for the powers, as suggested by the amendments, would add significantly to the time needed before a direction could be made. The consequent delay could put implementation of parts of the plan at risk. Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment. I would add that generally it would be the Secretary of State deemed appropriate that would have to deal with this matter.
Column Number: 62
Mrs. Lait: That answer rather suggests the question: how long is a piece of string? I will accept the Minister's reassurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Functions affecting London Olympics
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 9, line 11, at end insert
(iii) any objection sent under sub-paragraph (ii) has been withdrawn in writing, or
(iv) the Secretary of State, having considered any objection sent under sub-paragraph (ii), has approved the exercise of the function.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 35.
Mr. Caborn: Clause 11 requires local traffic, highway and street authorities to notify the ODA when exercising a function that might affect Olympic transport. It then has 30 days to raise an objection.
The Bill, as drafted, allows the ODA to reverse the effect of actions that have been notified, but it does not allow the ODA to act where an action has been notified but consent has not yet been given, or where actions are taken in spite of ODA objections. We do not want the ODA's objections to be ignored. Amendment No. 34 therefore ensures that it will be able to act in all these situations.
Amendment No. 35 allows for dispute resolution. It will enable the ODA to withdraw its objections or, failing that, it will allow the Secretary of State to overrule the ODA after due consideration of any objections.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 35, in page 9, line 21, leave out from 'done' to 'subsection' in line 23 and insert 'in contravention of'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Traffic regulation orders: enforcement
4.30 pm
Hugh Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out '5' and insert '1'.
In the July briefing on the Bill that the Minister kindly arranged, we discussed this clause in some detail and it became apparent that a fine of level 5 on the scale is, perhaps unsurprisingly, five times greater than a normal fine. There is a body of opinion that motoring fines are already quite steep. Anyone who has had the pleasure of a close encounter with a speed camera would probably agree, three points and £60 later.
Column Number: 63
I understand why the Olympics will need a special transport lane, but I am not sure why that should be supported by a fine five times greater than a normal fine, which is already considered to be fairly steep. If any member of the Committee doubts that, they should think of the moment in the Olympics when they get a letter from the little old lady in their constituency who strayed into the Olympic route by mistake, probably not knowing it was there, who was caught by camera and who has now been hammered with a fine five times the normal amount. Think of the normal £60 fine and times it by five. That is an appalling prospect. We have all dealt with constituents like that, who would be exceedingly unhappy. Is not that rather heavy-handed? Is not there a more sensible approach? I accept that there must be sensible enforcement of the lanes, but I question whether a level 5 fine is not draconian.
Mr. Caborn: I think that we all acknowledge that, during the operational phase of the games, it will be essential to keep the Olympic route network free for transport. Those were among the conditions that we gave to the IOC in our candidate file. In order to achieve that, the ODA will need to regulate carefully the use of the Olympic route network to ensure that traffic can flow freely, and will rely in part on ensuring that people will be deterred from obstructing or parking on the ORN. The problem is how to deter people. It will therefore be necessary to ensure that suitable deterrents and fines can be imposed when the regulations are infringed.
In considering the level of fine that should be imposed, we took into account the experience of the previous host cities Atlanta, Sydney and Athens. During the Athens games of 2004, fines for parking on critical Olympic routes were set at such a level that it was often cheaper for motorists to pay the fine than to pay for a legitimate parking space. Obviously, we want to avoid that in 2012, and must therefore ensure the level of fine for the contravention of an ODA order under clause 12(1) will be a genuine deterrent to the obstruction of the ORN. Setting the fine at level 5 is the most appropriate way of achieving that. That amount is the maximum fine, and magistrates can use their discretion according to the circumstances of the case, including those of little old women, to decide what level of fine is appropriate. I do not know of many little old women who were fined in Atlanta or Sydney.
Mrs. Lait: Does that imply that it will not be a fixed penalty notice system?
Mr. Caborn: It may well be that one can opt for a fixed penalty notice. I know because I have just gone through the process. One can appeal to the magistrates court, although I understand that that may not be advantageous, but if a little old lady flips out of her house to take her dog out in the car and flips into the lane, magistrates might take those to be mitigating circumstances. With a fixed penalty notice, one has an option and can appeal, which I decided not to do over the fine when I came out of Cornwall on my holidays. I took the three points and £60 fine.
Mr. Foster: I expect that Committee members would be grateful if the Minister dropped us a note,
Column Number: 64
soon, about how he expects the system to operate. One difficulty not covered in the legislation is that, as he says, the figure is for the maximum fine, which would currently be £5,000. I believe that the Committee will accept the importance of keeping the Olympic route network open. Equally, however, it will also accept the importance of keeping the red route network open. We therefore need the Minister or someone to tell us how the offence of a car parked on the red route network and restricting it compares with the offence of a car that is obstructing the Olympic route network, so that we have a concept of the order of magnitude and importance of the two. That information is currently missing, and it is very difficult to have the debate without it.
Mr. Caborn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I shall try to secure an explanation. It is a question of balance. We had that difficulty in Athens. We should make no mistake about that. That was a real problem, which we do not want to repeat. We shall try to find a rationale for the things that we have missed, and draw a comparison with the red route as well. I shall write to members of the Committee.
Hugh Robertson: We have had a good day, and I do not want to ruin it now. It does strike me, however, that quite a lot of this will be policed by cameras, as the Minister said. The fact is that £60 is already quite a heavy fine. To get whacked for £300, if that is the effect of the provision, is to receive a very severe caning indeed. I simply believe that it is over the top. I accept what the Minister says about Athens, but I suspect that Greek traffic fines are not quite of the magnitude of British ones.
I am very happy to leave the matter where the Minister has left it. In the nicest possible way, there was clearly confusion about exactly how the five times trigger arose and exactly what the process is. I could probably live with twice as great, but five times is a little steep. I shall happily withdraw the amendment if the Minister is prepared to clarify the rationale in writing to the Committee.
Mr. Caborn: As I said, I shall write to the Committee, as the hon. Member for Bath asked me to.
Hugh Robertson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Office of Rail Regulation
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 15, page 11, line 20, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 23 and insert
'(1) 'The list of objectives in section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (objectives of Office of Rail Regulation and Secretary of State) shall be treated, in relation to the Office of Rail Regulation only, as including the objective of facilitating'.
| 
