|
Mr. Knight: In view of the co-operation that exists between EU member states in many areas, are not negotiations taking place on the matter? Will the Minister give a precis of the stage we are at in achieving an agreement with our European partners on the problem?
Mr. Jamieson: I cannot go into too much detail, because I would be testing the Committee's patience if I did, but it is true that we are having discussions with our European colleagues about how we can enforce the laws on driving offences throughout the EU. That will take time. The difficulty is that the current laws are so disparate. What is an offence in one country may not be an offence in another, and there are other considerable difficulties.
Moreover, we do not want the EU to have competence in some areas, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want that either. We could find ourselves obliged to have the same traffic laws as other countries, which I would resist. We have a good road safety record in this country and a good record of enforcing the law on the road. I would not want to see that diluted in any way by agreements that reduce the impact of that law enforcement.
In future, we have to look at the way that police forces share information about vehicles and offenders so that people cannot commit and get away with an offence in one country, then freely move across EU borders to another country. That is not in anyone's interest. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has made a good argument for being pro-European. One of the purposes of being a member of a union is to allow states to work together against that minority of people who may be committing offences on the road, and as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, some of those people may be undertaking other nefarious activities.
The penalty will allow the police officer to make a judgment about the offence that has been committed, and it will ensure that a person will receive a
Column Number: 102
punishment based on what they would have received if they had been taken to court and received a penalty point. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that that will have a limited effect in the first instance, but in time, once more of the speed cameras use digital systems rather than wet-film systems, it will be possible for ANPR cameras to pick up some of those vehicles at the ports where they are leaving or entering. We will be able to check on some of those vehicles. If they had been regularly committing offences, the new technology would allow us to pull them over to insist that the penalty was paid, either before they left the country or when they came back into it.
John Thurso: The Minister is making an interesting point. Will he confirm that the technology will be able to read foreign number plates as well as British ones?
Mr. Jamieson: That is the next challenge. The number plates are varied in size and in the information that they carry. Activity is under way to see whether we can recognise the large majority of number plates from foreign countries. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is a considerable challenge to create software that can read number plates from 25 different countries. I am assured that currently the majority of them can be read.
In future, we will be able to carry out enforcement activities at the ports of departure. That is one of the advantages of being an island nation; in some countries, borders are exceedingly difficult to police.
Mr. Chope: The Minister has, as always, been helpful, but I am not sure that he has allayed our concerns about the fact that increasing numbers of foreign drivers are committing speed camera offences with impunity. The Government are doing nothing about that. They could put more traffic police on the roads, targeting vehicles with foreign number plates in the knowledge that their drivers will not be brought to book if they commit road traffic offences detected by camera. It is often difficult for ordinary citizens to read the number plates on foreign vehicles. We need an enforcement clampdown aimed at foreign vehicles. That does not seem to be on the Government's agenda. I fear that the consequence of the clause will be a lot more oppression of individuals in this country who cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of the police that they have got what is described as a permanent address; they might have only an accommodation address.
10.45 am
I will not press the matter to a vote because I can envisage circumstances in which the provision might be useful. My constituency, probably like that of many hon. Members, is plagued by the problem of so-called Travellers. In Christchurch, one of these Travellers was recently apprehended by the police, but because the person had no fixed address the police said that the option available to them was to arrest the person, take them to the police station and present them to a magistrates court as soon as possible, which would mean keeping them in custody for many hours. At the court, the person would probably get a rap on the
Column Number: 103
knuckles and be on their way to commit some more offences. The police decided that in the end they would not bother to arrest the Travellers for the miscellany of road traffic offences of which they seemed, prima facie, guilty. If the Minister had said that he would use the powers to target the problem of those people who call themselves Travellers, but who actually come into our country, cause mayhem and have no regard for the law, I would have a lot more confidence about them than I do at the moment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 10, page 12, line 23, at end insert
'provided that such direction is reasonable in the circumstances and does not result in or require the person so directed to pay any costs fees or expenses to any third party as a direct consequence of the direction.'.
The Minister said that we do not want to have the same traffic laws as Europe. Generally speaking, I agree, although I have to say that when I find myself travelling home on the motorway during a non-rush-hour period, and mine is the only vehicle around, I sometimes wish that we could harmonise our upper speed limits with our partners in France and Germany.
We welcome the clause, but only if the powers are fairly used. The amendment is intended to ensure that any removal direction imposed on a motorist is reasonable. The clause is a wide one. I refer the Committee to page 11, where it says that a constable has the right to prohibit a person from driving if he has been stopped and fails to make a payment. I can understand why that may be necessary. The constable can prohibit the person from driving on a road
''any vehicle of which the person was in charge at the time of the offence by giving to the person notice in writing of the prohibition.''
So far, so good. However, the provisions go on to say:
''A constable or vehicle examiner may by direction in writing require the person to remove the vehicle to which the prohibition relates . . . to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction''.
We can understand why that might be necessary. It could well be that the vehicle, in its present position, is causing or may cause an obstruction, so the police officer wants it moved to a particular place. However, when the police make such a direction, it should be fair and should not directly result in the person who has committed an offence being subjected to a huge extra cost.
I am thinking of a scenario in which a police officer tells the person in charge of a vehicle to remove it to an inner London car compound, which happens to be next to a perfectly acceptable car park that charges £10 a day, whereas the compound charges £80 a day for the storage of vehicles. If a police officer were to make such a direction, the driver who had committed the offence could face storage charges of up to five times the fixed penalty that he has not paid, which would not be reasonable. Most car compounds charge exorbitant fees, and it could well take a driver who had been
Column Number: 104
arrested for a relatively minor offence three days to get the money to pay the penalty. Why should he have to pay a whopping fee to some profiteering car compound, the effect of which would be to turn a relatively minor financial penalty into a huge burden on him, when he had made only a minor transgression in the law? We must ensure that the powers under the clause, which we welcome, are exercised fairly and reasonably, and that they do not result in an accused person being penalised excessively.
Mr. Jamieson: The clause provides for cases in which people will not pay a deposit by enabling enforcement officers to prohibit the driving of vehicles. In such cases, it may be necessary for the enforcement officer to direct that the vehicle be moved to a place of safety or a place where it will not cause any further problems. We want to avoid situations in which offenders required to pay a deposit simply abandon their vehicles, thereby causing additional costs to enforcement agencies and unnecessary disruption and inconvenience to other road users. Someone with a vehicle of little value could walk away, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab of removing the vehicle and doing whatever is necessary.
The police already have powers to prohibit the use of vehicles on the grounds of roadworthiness, drivers' hours and other offences. They frequently direct drivers to take their vehicle to a place where it can safely be parked until the problem is remedied. That is quite right; some of those vehicles should not be on the road, and the police and the enforcement agencies should not have to pick up the tab. The powers in the clause are based closely on those powers, and the same parking areas will be used for prohibitions that require the payment of a deposit. They are normally close to the checkpoint and generally cause little inconvenience.
I am a little surprised at the Opposition tabling the amendment. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the taxpayer should pick up the bill if a driver cannot provide an adequate address and will not pay the penalty fine, and the vehicle must be moved from the side of the road to a safe place? I am surprised that the hon. Member for Christchurch did not leap up and say that that was a stealth tax. That is what he usually does in such circumstances.
The taxpayer should not have to pick up the tab for such offenders. The initial offence may be small, but people who offend in that way should not be able to get away with it. Neither should they be able to place a further burden on the taxpayer. I ask the Committee most emphatically to reject the amendment.
| 
