| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Bottomley : My hon. Friend will be aware of the efforts of the parliamentary committee, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the secretary of which is my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). In his further considerations, will my hon. Friend the Minister give serious thought to cases where there is a dispute between those who are most severely handicapped in mobility terms and those who are somewhat handicapped? Will he ensure that the needs of the most severely handicapped are always taken into account, and, if it comes to a choice between the two levels of need, where necessary, priority is given to those who need help most?
Mr. Chope : I think that what my hon. Friend is saying is that the person making the decision should have the wisdom of Solomon. I hope that that will be so.
Question put and agreed to.
After clause 38
Lords amendment : No. 9, to insert the following new clause-- Variation of charges at off-street parking places
(" . After section 35B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted--
35C.--(1) Where an order under section 35(1)(iii) of this Act makes provision as to the charges to be paid in connection with the use of off- street parking places, the authority making that order may vary those charges by notice given under this section.
(2) The variation of any such charges by notice is not to be taken to prejudice any power to vary those charges by order under section 35 of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed by any local authority giving notice under this section.
(4) the regulations may, in particular, make provision with respect to--
(a) the publication, where an authority propose to give notice, of details of their proposal ;
(b) the form and manner in which notice is to be given ; and (
(c) the publication of notices.
(5) In giving any notice under this section a local authority shall comply with the regulations." ")
Mr. Chope : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment adds a new clause and introduces a further section into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Column 683
The new section has the same effect as that provided by clause 39, except that it applies to variations of charges of off-street parking places. It has been introduced in response to a request from the local authority associations.Question put and agreed to.
After Clause 39
Lords amendment : No. 10, to insert the following new clause-- Permitted and special parking areas outside London --
(".--(1) Schedule (Permitted and special parking areas outside London) shall have effect for the purpose of making provision with respect to areas outside London corresponding to that made with respect to London, and areas within London, under sections 57 to 69 of this Act.
(2) In this section "London" has the same meaning as it has in Part II of this Act.")
Mr. Chope : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 82.
Mr. Chope : When we last debated the parking provisions of the Bill in this House, I said that the Government would introduce amendments in the other place to allow for specified, non-endorsable parking offences to be decriminalised in specially designated districts of London, and to be enforced by local authority parking attendants. Amendments were introduced in Committee in the other place which now appear as amendments Nos. 72 and 73. They will enable my right hon. Friend, on application by a London authority, to make an order decriminalising specified parking offences in the district to which the order relates. Those areas will be known as special parking areas.
The first of the two new clauses introduced by the amendments specifies the offences to be decriminalised. It enables the Secretary of State, after consultation with the police and the relevant local authority associations, to add to the list of decriminalised offences to apply in special parking areas. If my right hon. Friend is made aware of further offences that could be covered by the parking area orders, subject to consultation with the police and the local authorities the list of decriminalised offences may be added to without the need for further primary legislation.
The second new clause applies the provisions of the new system of penalty charges developed for the enforcement of permitted parking in London to the decriminalised offences within the special parking areas. The London authorities will have extended powers to wheel clamp and remove vehicles in the special parking areas. There is a power for the Secretary of State to modify in the order any of the provisions of part II of the Bill in respect of their application in special parking area.
The principle of the amendments was widely welcomed when it was discussed in the House, and the amendments were given a similar reception in the other place. The Government were therefore pleased to respond to calls to consider the issues involved with the provision of a general enabling power providing for extension to other parts of the country of the new arrangements for permitted parking and special parking areas in London. Our considerations
Column 684
led us to conclude that such an enabling power was both possible and desirable. The amendments, which were carried in the other place, now appear as Nos. 10 and 82.Ms. Ruddock : We regard the amendments as extremely important. They provide for highway authorities outside London to have an additional tool to use in their efforts to deal with the growing problems of congestion and environmental difficulties brought about by illegal parking. The fact that the Government introduced the amendments in the other place shows what an effective Opposition working in conjunction with representative organisations can do to influence the shape of legislation.
It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's decision to amend the Bill in this way, but it would also be wrong not to remind the House that in Committee and on Report the Government strongly resisted Opposition amendments designed to have a similar effect. The Government's change of heart is particularly welcome to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which has been pressing for the change for six years in the face of what it regarded as unhelpful conclusions in the report of the Home Office working party on enforcement, unfruitful meetings with Ministers and strong ministerial resistance during the earlier stages of the Bill. However, we should like to move forward, not backward. In moving the amendments in the other place, the Minister--Lord Brabazon of Tara--said that while the Government envisaged experience being gained in London they took advantage of the powers in relation to authorities outside London. That approach appears to have merit, but while the general adoption of powers outside London should not take place before there has been some experience in the capital, we believe that there would be considerable merit in some authorities outside London also being given the go-ahead, so that experience could be gained in other areas on a pilot basis.
That suggestion was made on Report in another place, when the Minister said :
"I said in my speech that probably we would wish to see the experiment in London before other authorities in the country try to implement the provisions. That is our opinion at the moment. However, if any local authorities outside London wish to come forward with schemes, we shall be very willing to discuss them, provided that the police are also satisfied with the proposals. That is an important proviso."
5.30 pm
In the light of those remarks, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is currently discussing with its members the scope for a number of them to volunteer as guinea pigs in the deployment of powers outside London. Proposals for such trials are likely to be submitted to the Department later this year, and we hope that Ministers will be keen to discuss them positively with the association and the authorities involved.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : About six years ago, some local authorities in London and elsewhere were rather more loopy and left-wing than they are today. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) commented fairly that the Home Office was not the first to be convinced that this was a sensible concept.
One of the problems of enforcement for the police was that they did not receive the recycled receipts in respect of penalties imposed on those motorists who parked in the wrong place, or who stayed too long at a parking meter. Today, we have in effect a net cost regime, whereby some
Column 685
of the income from penalties can be used towards the cost of enforcement. Without wanting to break the Treasury rule against hypothecation, there are great benefits to be gained from effective enforcement, which are shared by the motorist trying to find somewhere to park legally. We know that Westminster, for example, declares a £3 million gain from effective enforcement.I personally believe that effective parking control leads to a reduction in unnecessary traffic. One finds fewer people driving around trying to find a space to park where there are yellow lines because they know that if they do so effective enforcement will bring the consequences of inconvenience and expense. One finds also that fewer people occupy a meter for half a day or more, because they know that an attendant will soon be along to impose a penalty if they overstay their time. The balance of convenience is outweighed by greater enforcement.
I support the hon. Member for Deptford in her remarks about pilot schemes outside London. Experience in London will not always be duplicated elsewhere. There are many towns and cities where it would be possible to run experimental schemes with the agreement of the local police and of the Home Office.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the pragmatic way in which he has advanced matters. Motorists have the most to gain from a stricter system of parking enforcement. Road pricing would be a daft way of achieving the same ends. We ought to emphasise that, for people who earn a great deal of money, sitting in traffic jams is a waste of their time.
If we suggest that people with enough money should pay to buy some road space, that may be taken up by those working for local authorities--who will expect them to meet the charge--or for big business, who have no problem with money but only with time. Such an arrangement would penalise teachers, for example, living in one area, dropping their children off in another area, and driving to work at a school in a third area. However, perhaps that is straying off the subject of parking control.
Mr. Fearn : Am I right in thinking that, before a local authority can implement any scheme, it must make an application to the Secretary of State and receive his approval?
Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : I fully support the amendment to the extent that it tidies up certain points of law. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister counts it as only the first tidying up, because much remains to be done in respect of the law on wheel clamping outside the metropolitan area. A profitable business has been created by private companies clamping cars outside hospitals and in private car parks, when the motorists concerned are often unaware that they are forbidden to park there. Wheel-clamping firms impose incredible charges. The most recent example I know of involved a penalty of £45, in the city of Southampton.
I believe that the Association of Wheel Clamping is acting because of the general weakness of the law as it applies outside London. My hon. Friend the Minister would be right to argue that the law of trespass prevails, but the imposition by private companies of large fines on private motorists in not within any law that I know of outside the London area, and it is something on which my hon. Friend the Minister might usefully comment.
Column 686
Mr. Chope : I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and to the whole House for supporting the amendments. Sometimes, it takes longer for the Government to reach the right conclusion, but I am sure that we have done so in this case. That has been possible because of co-operation between my Department and the Home Office.
Ms. Ruddock : And the Opposition.
Mr. Chope : Certainly, but the Opposition have always been of the same opinion as the Government supporters. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends also pressed me hard in Committee for the common sense behind the amendment.
Knowing as we do how stretched are police resources for allocation in London, it does not make sense to deploy them on parking offences when they could be directed at preventing crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, if local authorities or their agents enjoy sufficient income from penalties, it can be used to increase the level of enforcement. Consequently, when people drive into London, they are more likely to find a parking space, rather than be tempted to cause an obstruction.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is right to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider individual applications. The procedure is set out in detail in the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) raised the fraught question of wheel clamping on private land. Nothing in the Bill deals with that issue, and the law relating to it is subject to a certain amount of dispute. In the High Court recently, a motorist appealed against a conviction for criminal damage after he forcibly removed a wheel clamp that had been applied to a vehicle left on private land. The court found that in the particular circumstances of that case the conviction should stand because warning notices were clearly displayed on the land and that the individual who trespassed on it with his vehicle was deemed to have accepted the risk that his vehicle would be wheel clamped. However, I have no views on the definitive law. One or two other test cases are in the offing, although in one instance the defendants in a civil case withdrew. There is some difficulty in securing a definitive ruling on the civil aspect of wheel clamping because the courts can adjudicate only on cases that are brought before them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Test will be aware that Southampton has one of the best-known wheel clamping firms in the country. I do not know whether anything that he said was meant as implied criticism of that firm's activities. Hon. Members will welcome the code of practice or guidance produced by wheel clampers which specifies the maximum recommended fees for the removal of a clamp.
In Southampton there is much evidence that wheel clamping on housing estates has made it easier for tenants there to keep their parking spaces. Some private organisations seem to be making good use of wheel clamps. As I have said, one of the largest wheel clamping firms is based in Southampton. The legislation is a revolution in parking enforcement. It will begin in London, but bids from authorities outside London will be assessed on their merits. Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Column 687
Clause 40
Parking attendants
Lords amendment : No. 11, in page 39, line 27, leave out from ("may") to end of line 30 and insert
("provide for the supervision of parking places within their area by individuals to be known as parking attendants.
(1A) Parking attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other enactment.
(1B) A parking attendant shall be--
(a) an individual employed by the authority ; or
(b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a parking attendant.
(1C) Parking attendants in Greater London shall wear such uniform as the Secretary of State may determine when exercising prescribed functions, and shall not exercise any of those functions when not in uniform.")
Mr. Chope : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The amendment involves privilege. With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 76.
Mr. Chope : The amendment inserts a new clause after section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to provide local authorities with a clear general power to appoint parking attendants to supervise parking places. The amendment will enable parking attendants in London and elsewhere to enforce parking restrictions in special parking areas as well as the new permitted parking controls for which part II of the Bill provides.
Mr. Fearn : We welcome the amendment but query its powers, because they seem to apply only to London. However, the Minister spoke about "elsewhere", which could mean that the powers will apply outside London. I sympathise with the noble Lords who attempted to find an amendment that would introduce some guidelines on the method of payment for parking attendants. I understand that the Government disapprove of remuneration to parking attendants being based on the number of penalty charge notices issued. I agree that that would be entirely wrong.
Mr. Chope : I have nothing to add to what was said in the other place about some parking attendants being paid on the basis of the number of tickets that they issue. The Bill contains new and valuable safeguards which will enable people who feel aggrieved to go to an adjudicator. Some people feel that they are being penalised not because they overstayed the meter time but because the attendant has gambled on their not coming back to the car until the meter had ticked past the excess charge. The amendments contain the power to extend the legislation outside London, and that will be done by order when application is made. That has been considered by the Government.
Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
Column 688
Clause 41
Variable speed limits
Lords amendment : No. 12, in page 39, line 36, leave out "In"
Mr. Chope : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 16, 83 to 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 121, 131, 133 and 139.
Mr. Chope : The amendments are largely technical and are designed to improve clause 41, which provides for variable speed limits to be imposed by highway authorities in certain circumstances.
Ms. Ruddock : In connection with amendment No. 14, what other subjects, apart from the variable speed limits, might the regulations be used to deal with?
Mr. Peter Bottomley : The Minister says that the amendments are technical, but it is only by getting technicalities right that local highway authorities, which look after 94 to 96 per cent. of our roads, will have the opportunity to take traffic calming measures and protect the living cells, such as people on foot and on bicycles, who have as much as if not more priority than drivers.
Hon. Members will know about the number of times it has been necessary to change regulations and incorporate speed-reducing features and contributions from road traffic engineers. Such features cut speed by working sometimes on the psychology of the drivers and sometimes on the urban environment. It is important to emphasise to consumer groups, residents' groups and tenants' groups that they should campaign not for signs indicating lower speeds, but for traffic management and engineering which leads to vehicles travelling more slowly. That was one of the lessons that people learned from potholes. It has been learnt by the Danes and the Germans and, most importantly, by people in the Netherlands. Many local authorities, including some in London, have been pushing for such measures for some years.
5.45 pm
In the boroughs of Wandsworth and Bromley on two occasions the regulations did not allow the arrangements to come into force. However, traffic was moving slowly and there was no risk if the highway was changed to inhibit people travelling at speed. I think that the amendments and the clause have all-party agreement and that they will make it possible to continue adapting what highway authorities do to keep traffic on through roads and away from routes used by people on foot. Such journeys constitute half the journeys in the country. It should be possible to require traffic going through residential or shopping areas to go much more slowly. A person in a one-and-a-half tonne steel vest should not feel that he has an automatic right to shove to one side an elderly person, a child or some other road user.
I pay tribute to the many highway engineers who work as agents for the Department as well as principals in their own right for the advances that they have made. I hope that we shall reach the stage at which Britain is the safest country in the world not just for drivers but for pedestrians, especially children. We must use the contributions of highway engineers. The erection of a sign
Column 689
saying 15 mph or 20 mph is a reflection of their work rather than just an indication to motorists to drive more slowly.Mr. Chope : I agree with my hon. Friend. About a fortnight ago, I was in Exeter visiting Devon county council, which in the past month published a book--it is more a book than a pamphlet--giving examples of traffic calming measures that have been introduced not just in Devon but in Wandsworth, in the Netherlands and elsewhere. There is no need for local authorities to keep reinventing the wheel. I commend that publication to those who are interested in traffic calming measures. Wandsworth is not the only London authority to reduce casualties on the roads in residential areas and its success is due in no small measure to its enlightened attitude on traffic calming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, as well as putting up a sign one must introduce highway engineering measures.
In reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) I can say that the regulations will not cover other subjects. They cover speed limits and associated matters such as signing. For example, Lords amendments Nos. 83 and 94 make it clear that the Secretary of State may authorise road humps that do not conform with the regulations. The amendments go slightly wider, in that context, than pure speed. They are related to other matters that one can describe as ancillary matters.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) raised an important point. Am I right in thinking that, if a local highway department wanted to introduce road humps or any other speed- limiting feature that did not comply with the regulations, the Minister would be happy to receive an application from it and to consider whether the regulations needed to be adapted so that what made sense on the ground would also be legal?
Mr. Chope : That is very much the case, yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
After Clause 41
Lords amendment : No. 17, to insert the following new clause-- Tramcars and trolley vehicles-- ".--(1) After section 141 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (tramcars and trolley vehicles) there shall beinserted--
"Tramcars and trolley vehicles : regulations. 141A.--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that such of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below as are specified in the regulations shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications-- (
(a) to all tramcars or to tramcars of any specified class, or (
(b) to all trolley vehicles or to trolley vehicles of any specified class.
(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above are the provisions of sections 1 to 14, 18 and 81 to 89 of this Act. (3) Regulations under this section--
(a) may make different provision for different cases,
(b) may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, and
(c) may make such amendments to any special Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the regulations or in consequence of the
Column 690
application to any tramcars or trolley vehicles of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) above.(4) In this section--
"special Act" means a local Act of Parliament passed before the commencement of this section which authorises or regulates the use of tramcars or trolley vehicles ;
"tramcar"includes any carriage used on any road by virtue of an order under the Light Railways Act 1896 ; and
"trolley vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads without rails under power transmitted to it from some external source (whether or not there is in addition a source of power on board the vehicle)."
(2) After section 193 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (exemptions for tramcars, trolley vehicles etc) there shall be inserted--
"Tramcars and trolley vehicles. 193A.--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that such of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below as are specified in the regulations shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications--
| Next Section
| Home Page |