| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Astor: The Minister gave a very valid exposition of what happened to him. However, the point is that in those circumstances, when he got a ticket, he had a mobile telephone, was able to ring up and was able to get it cancelled. If this amendment goes through, under those very same circumstances, the car would be clamped. That is the difference. It might be the car of someone who did not have a mobile telephone; it might be the car of someone collecting a child from school, for example. In those circumstances, I do not believe that the car should be clamped immediately, as would happen under the Minister's amendment. That is a theme that I shall follow shortly, under the next amendment. In circumstances such as I described, it is entirely reasonable that the car should not be clamped for 15 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): Is the Minister seeking to press or to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am seeking to press the amendment, but I undertake to have conversations and discussions—
Viscount Goschen: The Minister may want to get some guidance on this matter. I know that we do not have Divisions in Grand Committee, but I am not content with his amendment, although I clearly do not want to breach the procedures. I am sure that the Minister will have an opportunity to present his amendments again at a later stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It is perfectly possible to press the amendment. If, however, there is disagreement, the amendment cannot stand.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It will come as no surprise, then, that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 122B and 122C not moved.]
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 122D:
- Page 46, line 7, at end insert—
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is in a similar vein to our previous discussion, so I can be brief. Again, it concerns clamping. I feel strongly that clamps should not be fitted immediately after a ticket has been issued. That is wrong. That happened to me
There are plenty of reasons why people occasionally run just over the time on their meter. In that case, it seems fair that they get a ticket, but the idea of being immediately clamped does not make sense. We are talking about traffic movement. One is often held up in the street by a clamping lorry going past in a residential area. I accept what any Member of the Committee says about clamping in streets that are important thoroughfares, but we must have a sensible policy. My amendment is intended to introduce a degree of sense to the clamping issue. I beg to move.
Lord Rotherwick: I support my noble friend, Viscount Astor—I say that just in case anyone else gets our names muddled up, as they frequently have. The Evening Standard article headlined, "Booked in 60 seconds", shows clearly that a ticket can be issued—in this case, by a parking warden—within a minute or three, five, nine, 10 or 14 minutes. However, as the Minister pointed out, while doing his best to put a ticket on his car, he had to walk a quarter of a mile. I am sure that he is very fit and probably scampered down the pavement in a few minutes, but if he was not I hope that he would accept that it could have taken him four or five minutes to do that. However, having been ticketed in less than four or five minutes, he could be clamped straight afterwards. I suggest that that is too unfair and that one has to give a little more leeway. Otherwise, without doing anything wrong and while trying their best, people may be clamped.
Viscount Goschen: Briefly, I support my noble friend. We must consider what clamping is for and whether it makes the problem worse. If we are really concerned about the movement of traffic and if we stick a large metal triangle on the corner of a vehicle, it will not go anywhere very quickly. That is about punishment and raising revenue. I support the amendment.
Lord Borrie: I add only that it is a deterrent.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Immobilisation is an additional measure over and above the penalty charge used by some enforcing authorities to deter unlawful parking. I underline the words, "unlawful parking". We are not talking about cars that are lawfully parked, but where the driver, unless he is deficient in some way, realises that he is unlawfully parked and is taking a risk in so doing. I have done it and got away with that risk and I am sure that other members of the Committee have done the same but we are talking about unlawful parking. That is the context that we must keep in mind. It is a useful tool to have in places such as central London where parking space is at a premium.
Clause 76(5) exempts from immobilisation vehicles displaying a current disabled person's badge—a blue badge. It also exempts from immobilisation vehicles
People who park in a paid-for parking place may overstay their time. Although that is a contravention for which a penalty charge may be issued, it is appropriate to allow a short period of grace before the additional measure of immobilisation is brought into play. It is not possible, for clear reasons, to allow a period of grace where somebody knowingly parks where restrictions are in force. So, someone who has parked in a parking space will have 15 minutes' grace over their parking time. If they have parked illegally, taking a risk or not realising that they were parking on a yellow line, they will not get that period of grace.
Amendment No. 122D would generally prohibit the immobilisation of a vehicle until 15 minutes after a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention had been issued. The prohibition would apply to overstaying in a paid-for parking place and to other contraventions, such as parking on yellow lines during the hours of restriction. The amendment would override the 15-minute grace period already provided for in subsection (5) in respect of paid-for parking places. If, for example, the penalty charge notice were issued immediately after the initial 15-minute grace period, the grace period would be extended to half an hour. We cannot accept that, nor can we accept that someone should be given a period of grace from having their vehicle immobilised, if they knowingly park unlawfully in the first place.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: I shall read the Minister's argument with care, although I am not sure that I fully accept it. I am not sure that the drafting of my amendment is correct. As the Minister said, it might take away the 15-minute grace period.
The point of principle that I was trying to establish is important. If someone has overstayed on a parking meter, they might, as the noble Lord said, get a 15-minute grace period, after which they will get a ticket. The Minister said that there should be a short period, but he could not define it. That seems unfair. We do not know whether the period is five minutes, 10 minutes or another quarter of an hour.
We must make the provision reasonable. A ticket for overstaying on a meter is quite expensive for the average motorist. If he has used up his extra 15 minutes' grace and got a ticket, he will be clamped immediately. That seems wrong. It is unfair enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that it might be a deterrent. We could go as far as we wanted with deterrence; we could take cars off the street or take the wheels off. We could do anything that we wanted, but we must be sensible.
Lord Borrie: I tried to make my intervention short. I made it entirely because somebody had said that all it was was a punishment. The measure is not intended
Viscount Astor: There is always an interesting link between deterrence and punishment. That is a separate debate that we were wise not to get into too fully this afternoon. My point is that it is wrong for someone to be clamped immediately after being issued with a ticket, without having a chance to move. My amendment would allow a reasonable time, ensuring that there was still a deterrent for the motorist, while giving him or her a reasonable opportunity to move the car, if, for whatever reason, they came back late to the meter. Does the Minister wish to intervene?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I wish to intervene because I think that it is important that we go over the process. A car is parked and the time expires. A ticket can be given immediately. The grace period of 15 minutes is between the ticket being issued and the clamping vehicle arriving. There is no 15 minutes' grace between the expiration of the parking meter and the issuing of the ticket, as I think the noble Viscount felt. The ticket can be issued immediately.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Without going round in too many circles and getting too muddled by too many 15 minutes, the answer is that my amendment is connected with the previous one. I will take up the Minister's kind offer to discuss his amendment and at that time perhaps we may discuss the implications of my amendment to see whether we can reach an understanding on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 122E and 122F not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 76 shall stand part of the Bill?
"(iv) not more than 15 minutes have elapsed since the issue of a parking ticket, or notification of a penalty charge; and"
5 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page