|
Mr. Knight: I am not entirely convinced by what the Minister says, and I do not buy his scenario of there being no alternative but to take a vehicle to an expensive, profiteering car compound. There are many other places where it could be parked while the offender obtained the money. In an area near where I live, where the police regularly undertake checks, there is a perfectly satisfactory lay-by which could be used in such circumstances. In many places there are picnic
Column Number: 105
sites and other areas where there would be no cost to the defendant of leaving his vehicle in a secure state until he could pay the fixed penalty ticket.
Mr. Jamieson: These powers are now being used by the police. When enforcement is being carried out, usually in relation to HGVs, there is a often a park or compound nearby where the vehicles can be parked. There is no intention of directing them miles away to places where they will incur an excessive cost. The checks are usually set up in places that require the minimum movement of the vehicle. My reason for rejecting the amendment is that the taxpayer should not have to pick up the tab if there are additional costs because the process takes longer than anticipated.
Mr. Knight: On the latter point we are at one. I would not wish the taxpayer to pick up the tab either, but as stated in the amendment, I want any removal direction to be reasonable. What the Minister said partly satisfies me as he made it clear that it would not be common practice for an expensive car compound to be used. However, there is a case for stating that the direction must be reasonable, and I want to reflect on the matter before Report.
Mr. Jamieson: There is a complaints system for the police and one for the VOSA inspectors who carry out the inspections and give vehicles directions. There is also an independent complaints officer who can take up those complaints if people feel that they have been unfairly treated. I am told that the latter service has never been used because no one has yet made a complaint.
Mr. Knight: I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. If a foreign national, whose English may not be good, falls foul of these provisions, his main concern will be to get back his vehicle and to get home. A complaints procedure is not necessarily the answer to that problem if, having paid three days' excessive storage charges, he has to go through a procedure that may require him to set out his case in writing or to meet someone.
As I was about to say before the Minister intervened, my main concern is that the powers should be used reasonably, which could be done by drafting an amendment with slightly different wording from mine. I want to reflect on what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chope: In an earlier debate on an amendment in my name, the Minister was helpful in showing sympathy for my point of view about the need for enforcement in the case of the lawlessness of Travellers who use vehicles without regard to the prevailing road traffic laws. When do the Government intend to use the powers in the clause to deal with a situation involving Travellers? Page 69 of the regulatory impact assessment addresses the clause on the basis that it is a means of dealing with offences relating particularly to
Column Number: 106
commercial vehicles. Page 33 of the Library research paper also says that the intention is to deal with commercial vehicles. It states:
''The intention is to introduce the schemes for the commercial sector. No decision has yet been taken about whether to apply the deposit scheme to other motorists without a UK address but the enabling powers would allow this.''
11 am
In light of the real concern about the growing problem of Travellers, will the Minister undertake to ensure that the powers being taken under the clause are used to deal with that problem, thereby giving the law enforcement authorities an additional string to their bow? That would bring some comfort to hard-pressed communities up and down the country who are fed up to their back teeth with the fact that there seems to be one law for them and another for Travellers. If the Minister cannot give such an assurance I will be very disappointed. I hope that he believes that the discussion in this Standing Committee is sufficient to ensure that the powers are applied to that kind of case.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could tell us when the main powers in the clause will be introduced. How soon will we see a rebalancing of the penalties imposed on foreign lorry drivers so that they are more proportionate to the number of foreign lorry drivers on our roads? The figures given in the regulatory impact assessment suggest that the number of prosecutions against foreign drivers is minute: there were just seven cases, with 10 offences, from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 compared with 7,835 prosecutions against non-foreign drivers. That is a wholly disproportionate way of dealing with the matter, considering the number of offences of which foreign drivers are guilty. If we give the Government these powers, how soon will they be implemented?
John Thurso: We are broadly content with the clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify one part of it. Subsections (6)(b) and (10)(b) of new section 90C both refer to refunds to be made when a deposit has been taken and some of the amount is required to be applied for a fine. Subsection (6)(a) says that the Secretary of State must
''apply so much of the payment as does not exceed the amount of the fixed penalty in or towards payment of the fixed penalty''.
Subsection (6)(b) deals with the refund. Its wording caught my eye over the weekend. It says that the Secretary of State must
''take the appropriate steps to make any appropriate refund to the person.''
It would have been possible to phrase that by saying simply, ''refund so much of the payment as exceeds the amount specified in (a)''. That would have been absolutely clear. The amount needed for the fine would be taken under paragraph (a) and the rest would be given back under paragraph (b).
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough) (Lab): Is not that exactly the definition of ''the appropriate refund'' given in new section 90C(12)?
John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming to precisely that point. Will the Minister confirm that what will be refunded is the difference
Column Number: 107
between the two amounts, and there is no latitude for excessive charging, administrative costs or all the other things that might arise?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Member for Christchurch went round in a wonderful circle when speaking to his amendments. He started by asking why those penalties should apply to the good, upstanding citizens of this country. The truth is, of course, that they will not. People who provide an address and adequate information to a police or enforcement officer will not be affected. There was then a flash of light in the hon. Gentleman's head, and his constituency case work must have come to mind. He remembered complaints about travellers in and around his constituency, and recalled that there are UK citizens who do not have a fixed address, and against whom, currently, the powers of the police are not always adequate. The clause gives the police the power to impose a penalty deposit on such a person, who may well be a UK citizen but who cannot or will not provide an adequate address.
In some cases the provision may mean that, if the person does not pay the penalty, the vehicle can be impounded so that they are prevented from moving until they have paid. Whether they are UK citizens or foreign drivers is neither here nor there. We should take action against those who currently slip through the net. The hon. Gentleman presented a wonderful argument which went round in a circle; he asked questions and then answered them, which was very helpful to me.
Mr. Chope: It is one of the frustrations of not being in government that we must both raise and answer questions from the Opposition Benches. One question that the Minister has not answered is whether the provision applies only to commercial vehicles.
Mr. Jamieson: There are many hazards and frustrations of being in opposition. I have been there, as have one or two of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Chope: And will be in future.
Mr. Jamieson: Well, all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that some of the hazards that he mentioned will be with him a little longer—unless, of course, he wants to follow the example of some of his hon. Friends and move to this side of the Committee.
Mr. Kidney: There are limits.
Mr. Jamieson: I am told that the parliamentary Labour party is full, but the hon. Member for Christchurch can go on the waiting list if he wants to.
Initially the measure is aimed at commercial drivers, because, as hon. Members know, they may not commit the majority of offences but, when they do commit them—and particularly when they are involved in collisions—they tend to be among the more serious events. They tend to happen on our main trunk and motorway network. HGVs are disproportionately represented in the figures for serious incidents involving death and injury. I am afraid to say that a
Column Number: 108
worrying number of foreign vehicles are involved in those figures too. The majority drivers are safe and the majority of vehicles are good, but those that are bad are represented in the figures. We are tackling the problem first where it is worst.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the provision will come into force. Assuming that the Bill obtains Royal Assent, there will be a period of consultation, which we will be obliged to undertake, followed by secondary legislation. I anticipate that if the timetable goes well that will certainly happen before the end of the year. It would then be up to us to decide how in future we might extend the provision to other vehicles.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross raised the question of the refund. I assure him that that would be the excess, if appropriate, paid over any fine. If the fine subsequently turned out to be less than the deposit there would be a refund. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) pointed out, proposed new section 90C(12) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 defines ''the appropriate refund''. It is, obviously, the difference between one amount and the other, and that had to be included in the Bill. I hope that that has been helpful.
| 
