| Previous Section | Home Page |
(b) provide for the contravention of regulations made under those provisions to cease to be a criminal offence ;
(c) specify the means by which the parking control authorities shall discharge their responsibilities under this section. (5) No Order may be made under this section before 1st January 1994.".'.-- [Ms. Ruddock.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ms. Ruddock : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the new clause will be to allow the Secretary of State to designate metropolitan district councils as parking control authorities. He would have to be satisfied that designation was necessary because the level of unenforced parking contraventions in the area concerned was undermining local transport policies. The powers provided by the new clause would not be used until 1994. The new clause is necessary because part II deals with parking enforcement exclusively in relation to London. The highways committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is concerned, and the Opposition share that concern, that parking problems in the major urban areas outside London are increasing rapidly and that action is needed in relation to them as well as in the context of London. That view is shared by the AMA's public transport committee, which is concerned about the effect of illegal parking on the reliability of bus services.
The best detailed information on the problems of enforcement is from joint police and highway authority studies of parking enforcement in Sheffield and Rotherham, commissioned by the Home Office working party on parking enforcement.
In Sheffield, surveys were carried out in three areas, including 20 per cent. of the city centre. Agreed beats were patrolled between five and 10 times over two days. The surveys adopted the same five-minute loading rules as that adopted by traffic wardens. The Sheffield survey found that fewer than 1 per cent. of vehicles found parking on yellow lines in the city centre had been served with a parking ticket. It found 55 vehicles parked on yellow lines in a northern part of Sheffield and 49 in part of south Sheffield. None had been subject to enforcement action.
The Rotherham survey was carried out on a similar basis. In Rotherham town centre, 132 vehicles were found parked on yellow lines, only one of which had been the subject of enforcement. In the outer areas surveyed, 47 contraventions were spotted, but not one parking ticket was seen.
Those surveys show that only a minute proportion of vehicles found on yellow lines had been served with a parking ticket. In response to that finding, the police state that the contraventions found were often in side streets and had resulted in no major congestion or road safety problem. On that basis, they argue that the findings did not support the case for change outside London.
The AMA highways committee accepts that many of the contraventions found in the Sheffield and Rotherham studies did not result in major congestion or road safety
Column 871
problems, but it does not accept that that in any way undermines the case for change. The fact is that the law is not being enforced. It is particularly important to understand the police view and their objective, which is parking enforcement strictly in the narrow terms of maintaining the free flow of traffic. Yet parking is increasingly also being viewed as an important transport policy. The availability of parking space can be an important influence on a person's decision whether to travel by car or by public transport. The availability of additional free parking space--that is, unenforced parking on yellow lines--can seriously undermine broader transport policies designed to encourage greater use of public service vehicles.It is also important to acknowledge that yellow lines are introduced for a range of reasons other than maintaining the free flow of traffic on main routes. Local traffic management and environmental considerations are often, and increasingly important. Those are local authority rather than police objectives, but the responsibility for allocating enforcement resources rests with the police.
Concern is not confined to south Yorkshire. For example, Manchester city council is currently lobbying for parking enforcement powers to be transferred to its authority. Its proposals are based on the important role that parking policies are likely to play in transport strategy designed to tackle that city's worsening problem of road congestion.
When the subject was discussed in Committee, the Minister rejected out of hand the case for change outside London. He said that the view of the Home Office working party was
"that the most pressing problems were in London. That is why we have brought forward proposals in the Bill to deal with the problems in London."
The Minister acknowledged that problems existed outside the capital, but maintained that they could be resolved by improved liaison between the police and highway authorities, but the Minister's remarks included a glimmer of hope for the future. He said :
"There is not sufficient evidence to warrant changing parking regimes outside London, but that will be reviewed in the light of the experience of the coming months and years in London."
We accept that the most pressing problems are in London, but that fact in itself is not a reason for not taking action in relation to other urban areas. The new clause is intended to meet most of the Minister's concerns.
First, the powers available in the clause could not be exercised until 1994. That is intended to enable trends in the other urban areas to be monitored, experience to be gained with the new arrangements in London, and discussions to take place between local highways and police authorities. If the new clause is accepted today, the legislation will be ready once those new steps have been taken. The new clause is deliberately drawn in flexible terms. If the Secretary of State were allowed to determine by order the range of powers to be given to parking control authorities, he would be able to take on board the lessons learned in London.
In Committee, when debating the issue, the Minister further said : "It is fair to say that local authorities sometimes abuse yellow lines by painting them on the road against the advice
Column 872
of the police. If the police advise against, it is hardly surprising that there is not much enforcement."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee G, 5 February 1991 ; c. 324-29.]That goes to the heart of the problem. Highway authorities introduce parking restrictions for a range of reasons--including, increasingly, support of broad transport objectives. Yet the enforcement of those restrictions--the decision, as the Minister suggests, whether they are enforced or not--is left to the police who, in relation to parking, have two important but narrow
objectives--maintaining the free flow of traffic and protecting road safety on main routes.
The way ahead does not lie in the direction set by the Minister, who, in practice, has given the police carte blanche not to enforce restrictions with which they do not agree. The way forward involves vesting public policy making, regulation making and enforcement in one authority--the local highway authority.
The Minister's response also highlights a contradiction between the recognition now being given by his Department to the importance of parking to transport policy and his attitude to enforcement. The new clause attempts to address the issue head on by including as factors which Ministers must take into account when designating a parking control authority the transport policies of the areas concerned and the impact of the level of enforcement of those policies. The Minister may well argue about the wording of the new clause, but that is not important at this stage of the Bill's process. What is important is that the Minister should acknowledge that parking enforcement is a problem in urban areas outside London ; that it is likely that changes to the enforcement regime will be needed to tackle those problems in due course ; that experience in London could provide valuable lessons for other areas ; and that it would be sensible to take enabling powers in the Bill so that steps could be taken to tackle the problem outside London, as soon as the Department and the police accept the local authorities' case for change. That stage may not be reached in the immediate future, but it will almost certainly be reached before further parliamentary time is found for this important area of debate.
Mr. Chope : I cannot accept the amendment. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has explained, it is along similar lines to one that we discussed at considerable length in Committee. I said then that part II of the Bill had been brought forward largely in response to detailed consideration of the issues by a working party chaired by the Home Office during 1987 and 1988. Its report concluded that the problem was in London and that, although it is not true to say that there are no problems outside London, we should tackle the problems there first.
8.30 pm
In Committee, I said that it ought to be possible to arrive at a reasonable accommodation on appropriate levels of enforcement effort for traffic and parking controls in the provinces, given that the county is both the police and the highway authority. In many cases, that is what happens in practice.
As the hon. Lady reminded us, I also said that we would reconsider this matter in the light of experience. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a flexible attitude to the subject and that, if he were persuaded of the need to extend these powers outside
Column 873
London, he would have no hesitation in introducing the necessary legislation. At this stage there is no case for proceding in that manner.Ms. Ruddock : Does the Minister have any thoughts on how many years it will be before congestion problems in other major cities reach the stage that they have now reached in London? Does he believe that associated problems and the need to enforce parking restraints are relevant to that?
Mr. Chope : I cannot speculate. There is some significance in the fact that no authority outside London has requested the introduction of wheel clamping powers from the Secretary of State, which suggests that authorities have not yet exhausted the enforcement mechanisms available to them under existing powers. Authorities can also employ their own parking attendants to enforce excess charges at paid-for parking meters on the streets, and few authorities yet do so. Those authorities which are introducing new parking controls--whether with meters, parking vouchers, or pay-and-display schemes--find that they can help to achieve their traffic objectives, as well as yield a satisfactory financial return.
I am not sure whether there is a demand for the changes that the hon. Lady suggests. Even if we had sound
Column 874
evidence for extending our proposals beyond London, it is by no means certain that we would want to limit those powers to metropolitan districts in the way that the new clause does. Why should they be singled out? If the principle were agreed, it would be reasonable to consider extending the powers to the counties as well.Ms. Ruddock : We limited powers to the metropolitan districts because we have received evidence that it is in those areas that the problem is perceived as being worse. That is the reason for the limitation in the new clause.
Mr. Chope : I hear what the hon. Lady says, but it is not necessary to repeat why the Government feel that the new clause should not be accepted. It does not mean that some of the powers that will soon be implemented in London may not be applicable to provincial areas at some stage in the future. We are not ruling that out, but it would be wrong to include the new clause in the Bill.
Question put and negatived.
New Clause 17
Prosecution and punishment of offenders
Column 873
1990-91 1991-92
|Plans |Forecast |Plans
|outturn
|£ million|£ million|£ million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Structural renewal:
Bridges |4.9 |4.9 |7.0
Roads |19.1 |19.1 |27.0
General maintenance: |18.0 |18.0 |19.9
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Gale : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 17 seeks to reintroduce a custodial sentence for driving while uninsured. This was thoroughly discussed in Committee and I do not want to detain the House long on the subject tonight. However, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the great concern that has been expressed by the Magistrates Association, among others, about the inability to impose anything other than a fine for the free-standing offence of driving uninsured.
I am acutely aware that, in many cases, magistrates have powers to impose other sentences because driving uninsured occurs as an offence on its own on relatively rare occasions. However, there are slightly more than 200,000 convictions each year for driving uninsured, which leads me to believe that at any one time the number of people driving uninsured is somewhere in the region of 500,000. Apart from those involved in other offences--for example, theft of a car for use in a burglary or taking and driving away, which account for a number of cases--it is clear that there is a hard core of people who take a calculated risk. Rather like those who knowingly choose not to pay for a television licence, in the belief that they may get away with it, there is a hard core of people who decide, with malice
Column 874
aforethought, that in the long run it is cheaper not to pay for insurance. Clearly that is worrying. They may get away with it for quite a long time and, as things stand, they may save money. Yesterday, the House carried the Criminal Justice Bill through its final stages. It provided for an increase in the level of fine to more than £2,000. I do not wish to pretend that that is not an improvement and that it is not likely to be some deterrent. However, the courts feel that there is a case for enabling them to impose a community service order on people who drive uninsured.In 1974, the custodial sentence for this offence was abolished. That was first moved by the Conservative Government in the first half of 1974. The Bill was picked up and carried through by the Labour Government which was elected in 1974. The Bill faced fierce opposition in Committee but was carried on the Floor of the House. The sentence was abolished because the Government--it is fair to say that both sides of the House agreed--felt that the custodial sentence was, in most cases, too draconian, and I agree. When the House took that decision in 1974, the community service order was not on the statute book. As the House knows, community service orders depend on a custodial sentence. Magistrates would like the opportunity to impose community service orders, which they believe
Column 875
would be more effective than a fine in some cases, because of the inconvenience caused to the person concerned. There is a feeling that fines are generally treated lightly and with some disdain. Only rarely does the bench--or, in the case of a trial on indictment, the court--find it necessary to impose a prison sentence. The problem is that the custodial sentence, which the House is trying to recommend less, in general, is the key to the community service order. As I have said, I do not wish to be doctrinaire about the matter. The problem caused by those who drive without insurance is important. It would indeed have been highlighted in three new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), which I had intended to move for him, but I am afraid that I let him down very badly. I sprinted along the corridor, but did not quite make it in time. My hon. Friend the Minister will remember, as I do, that there was unanimity on the issue in Committee, and I had the distinct impression at the time that my hon. Friend was not entirely opposed to the amendment that we discussed then.I accept that what the House decides to do--I hope that it will decide to do something--must be in keeping with both the Criminal Justice Bill, which we passed last night and which is now in the other place, and the other sentencing proposals in this Bill. I know that my hon. Friend has already considered the matter carefully, but I ask him to continue to do so, and, if necessary, to tell me that he is prepared to table an amendment in another place if it is felt that my proposals are too draconian or out of keeping with the general context of both the Criminal Justice Bill and the Road Traffic Bill.
Mr. Allason : Driving without insurance is a serious offence : anyone without insurance causing an accident involving injury will ensure that the victim is not compensated. Not many people know that the Motor Insurers Bureau exists to compensate those involved with another vehicle so that their own vehicle can be repaired. The new clause has a deterrent value ; another deterrent would be provided by the adoption of a disc along the lines of the road fund licence disc, which, if displayed in the car, would prove that the driver was insured. It is astonishing that anyone can buy a vehicle in this country without having to provide proof of an insurance policy. The only occasion when that needs to be done is when a vehicle needs to be retaxed : as we know from bitter experience, few people renew their road fund licences.
I urge the Government to accept the new clause.
Mr. Chope : My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) should not feel too concerned about his inability to be present for the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I would certainly have been prepared to consider the first seriously, in the light of what I knew that he wanted to say, although the second would have caused more difficulty.
Driving without insurance is a serious offence, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee supported the principle that it should be dealt with as such by the magistrates court. The new clause would make the offence triable on indictment, because a maximum penalty of six
Column 876
months' imprisonment would be involved : if the sentence were limited to three months, it would be triable only in the magistrates court.I believe that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to discuss the matter with our right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who is ultimately responsible for deciding on matters relating to imprisonment and on the maximum penalties. I know that my right hon. Friend is willing to discuss the issue with the Magistrates Association, on whose behalf my hon. Friend and others have spoken : indeed, it is because of the magistrates' interest in the issue that we are discussing it today.
8.45 pm
I know that my right hon. Friend is also willing to consider the possibility of increasing the maximum financial penalty even further, to the maximum penalty that the magistrates are empowered to impose. That would not deal with my hon. Friend's anxiety about the magistrates' ability to impose community service orders ; it would, however, show the extent of the Government's concern about the offence of driving without insurance.
In the seven years between 1975 and 1982, the number of such offences increased by 60,000 ; in the seven-year period between 1982 and 1989, it increased by only about 17,000. The rate of increase is slowing, at a time when the number of private cars on the road has increased by some 30 per cent. and the number of road traffic offences has increased by 38 per cent. My hon. Friend is right in saying that, in many cases, driving without insurance was not the most serious offence--other offences were involved, such as taking a motor vehicle without authority, which used to be called taking and driving away--but in 1989 it was the most serious offence to be tried by the courts in about 127,000 cases.
Disqualification clearly protects the public from uninsured drivers by removing them from the roads, and, given the level of penalty points, it will not be difficult to reach the stage of
disqualification under the totting-up procedures. I think, however, that it would be wrong to base sentencing purely on the deterrent effect. Experience and evidence suggests that that is not always the most important issue, and that is why the approach of the Home Office is to base sentencing on the gravity of the offence. I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Government take the matter seriously and are willing to keep it under review, and that my right hon. Friend will be able to meet the Magistrates Association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) raised an issue that has been raised many times in the past : the desirability of insurance certificates being displayed on windscreens. That happens in some other countries, but we see severe practical problems in the practice, which would need the co-operation of the insurance companies and a specified period for the duration of the certificate. We consider that the present system of an annual or, in some cases, six-monthly road fund licence renewal--to qualify for which a driver must show his insurance certificate and, if the age of the vehicle makes that appropriate, his MOT certificate- -is sufficient. One of the biggest problems is that, in this country, a single insurance certificate can cover more than one driver and more than one vehicle. In France, insurance has traditionally been based on a single driver and a single
Column 877
vehicle. Clearly, it would be much easier to have one certificate which would appear on the windscreen of the vehicle covered by the insurance.I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to keep the matter under review. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Gale : I thank my hon. Friend for his generous understanding of the fact that hon. Members sometimes have to be in three places at once and for the undertaking that he has given, although not forced to do so. I hope that the matter can be dealt with in the other place. I warmly appreciate the time that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office gave me today and for his undertaking to meet the Magistrates Association to discuss the matter. Clearly, the new clause would have ramifications that I did not wholly appreciate when I first tabled it, not least in terms of the general sentencing in context. I hope that the new clause will at least have shed some light on matters that require further discussion--I would not say, opened a can of worms. I hope that it will be possible to reconsider the matter in the other place. With that proviso, and with many thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 19
Prohibition of motor vehicles on byways
Before section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted--
"Prohibition of motor vehicles on byways 34a(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle on any byway he is guilty of an offence. (2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the motor vehicle was driven in contravention of subsection (1) above for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.
(3) In this section lawful authority' does not include the exercise of a public right of way over a byway except where (
(a) the right of way is being exercised in connection with agricultural or forestry operations ; or
(b) the exercise of the right of way has been authorised by an order under subsection (4) below.
(4) A local authority may, by order, grant authorisation for the use of motor vehicles on a byway in its area, and such authorisation may provide for use to be restricted to named persons, to a class of vehicle or to specified times.
(5) In this section--
byways' means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic ; but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are so used ;
local authority' has the same meaning as in section 33 above.".'. Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause arises from the concern expressed by many people--the Ramblers Association in particular--about the damage that can be done to footpaths by driving of motor vehicles upon them. The problem is becoming increasingly serious. Our byways--the green lanes in the Pennines, the ridgeways in the downlands and public footpaths throughout the country--are being seriously damaged and churned up, often by joy riders.
The problem needs to be tackled. The new clause makes it clear that we would not in any way want to inhibit access
Column 878
for emergency vehicles or for genuine and legitimate farming and forestry purposes, but we must do everything we can to protect our byways, many of which are in glorious parts of our landscape and offer unparalled opportunities for recreation to many thousands of people. It is incumbent on us to do what we can to ensure that they are protected. The new clause seeks to do precisely that, and I hope that the Government will respond positively to it.Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this well-motivated and necessary new clause.
Mr. Chope : I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
The law already makes adequate provision for the matters to which the hon. Gentlemen referred. Highway authorities are obliged under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to hold "definitive maps". These are open to inspection by the public and they record the status of routes in the locality. Routes presently shown as "road used as public paths" may be reclassified as footpaths or bridleways where there is no evidence of established vehicular rights. Where there are established vehicular rights, the routes must be shown as "byways open to all traffic". The definition is found in section 127 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and is one used in the new clause. Such a byway conveys a public right of way for vehicles, as the definition itself expressly states. That is how the law stands at present, and we believe that the procedures are satisfactory. The new clause seeks to extinguish vehicular rights on byways open to all traffic, with exceptions only for emergencies and in respect of rights of way exercised in connection with agricultural or forestry operations and so on. "Procedure" is probably a misnomer for what is provided by the new clause, which simply gives a summary power to the local authority to grant "authorisations". The new clause is silent about the criteria against which these would be given, and the procedures to be followed. It represents an extraordinary withdrawal of long-established rights of way and would be extremely controversial were the House to accept it and incorporate it in law.
Mr. Fearn : Does the Minister agree that most local authorities do not have definitive maps? Many give the excuse that they do not have the time or the staff to produce them. Apparently, the Minister requires such maps to be produced. How long will authorities have to produce them? I am thinking in particular of my own authority, Sefton. With my support, the ramblers have been asking for a definitive map for the past five or six years, and it has still not been done. Is there a time limit?
Mr. Chope : I am not aware that there is a time limit. We are talking about an Act of Parliament passed in 1981. I should certainly hope that local authorities are making some progress towards the establishment of definitive maps, as they are under an obligation to do just that. I shall look into the matter and ascertain whether authorities have until the millennium--or until the next millennium--to produce the maps, or whether they are under an obligation to do so sooner. Obviously, they
Column 879
should be brought under some local political pressure, particularly in the light of concern about the unsuitable vehicular use of ancient byways.In many cases, it should be possible to establish voluntary management arrangements, which would limit use by, for example, trail bikes or off- road vehicles. Representative bodies have sought to promote responsible use by bikers and four-wheel-drive users. That is a reasonable way in which to deal with the problem.
Mr. Chris Smith : I fear that the Minister's response is, indeed, disappointing. He places too much reliance on the possibility of voluntary management agreements, which do not always work and which are not always possible. He has failed to recognise the problem identified by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn)--the absence in a number of local authority areas of the definitive maps to which he devoted so much attention. He has also ignored the fact that there is undoubtedly a failure of enforcement even where definitive maps exist and the fact that, in some places--the green lanes are a classic case in point--where the supposed long-standing rights of vehicular access apply, there is none the less a serious problem with the destruction of our countryside heritage. The issue requires more attention and less complacency from the Government.
Of course I accept that the new clause, in setting out its objectives, is far from perfect. For example, it does not lay down criteria for the local authority concerned. That being the case, it probably would not be sensible to press it to a vote. However, I hope that the Government have noted that among hon. Members there is considerable concern about this matter. We shall certainly wish to return to it in due course.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3
Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.
9 pm
Mr. Chope : I beg to move, amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert--
(c) he is, within 18 hours after that time, required to provide a specimen in pursuance of section 7 of this Act but without reasonable excuse fails to provide it,'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.
Mr. Chope : These amendments deal with a technical but important point relating to the refusal to provide a specimen where the new "causing death" offence is alleged. It is important that there be no built-in incentive to refuse a specimen in drink-drive cases, but there is also a need to have a proper safeguard. This amendment incorporates a safeguard-- that a person who has refused to provide a specimen more than 18 hours after the incident to which it related would not be able to be convicted of failing to provide a specimen. The time limit is 18 hours : although
Column 880
obviously not exact, it is a proxy for a maximum period during which a person whose level was more than three times over the limit would probably have his blood alcohol level reduced to within the limit.Amendment agreed to .
Amendments made : No. 28, in page 2, line 37, leave out from beginning to he'.
No. 29, in page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 48.
No. 30, in page 3, line 4, leave out from beginning to above' and insert Subsection (1)(b) and (c)'.-- [Mr. Chope.]
Clause 5
Causing danger to road-users
Mr. Chope : I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert
(a) anything lawfully placed on or near a road by a highway authority ;
(b) a traffic sign lawfully placed on or near a road by a person other than a highway authority ;'
This amendment arises out of concern, expressed during the debate on clause 5, that the new offence did not adequately cater for traffic equipment placed by anyone other than a highway authority. I explained then that the clause as drafted already catered for equipment placed by contractors working on behalf of a highway authority, but did not go far enough.
The intention of the amendment is therefore to provide a new definition of "traffic equipment" for this purpose. It will extend the application of the new offence to interference with all traffic signs and safety equipment put up by undertakers executing street works in accordance with the requirements imposed by the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 or which will be imposed under the new roads and street works legislation. I hope that it will be helpful.
Amendment agreed to.
| Next Section
| Home Page |