|
Matthew Green: In general, I share some of the hon. Lady's concerns about fixed penalty notices, but clause 6 relates to offences committed under clauses 3 or 4—such notices will be issued mainly to companies. Presumably, if the company flees the scene, the problem will have been resolved because cars will no longer be parked on the road for sale. I am struggling to see where she is coming from.
Miss McIntosh: We stand to be corrected by the Minister.
The Library notes inform us, and subsection (8) is clear, that:
''The fixed penalty payable to a local authority . . . is, subject to subsection (9), £100.''
Under subsection (9), that amount can be amended, so it will be helpful to know by how much it could change. Could it increase to as much as £1,000 or will there be a limit? Does the Minister believe that to be a substantial fine? If, as the hon. Member for Ludlow reminded us, those fined will be companies—though individuals within a company may be prosecuted—£100 is not a substantial figure, given that lucrative business could have taken place.
Matthew Green: The hon. Lady will be aware, as she was in the Room, that we discussed the level of fine, if it is not a fixed penalty notice, under amendments Nos. 29 and 30. The Minister assured us that the Government were considering increasing the amount from £1,000 to £2,500 where a prosecution is sought rather than a fixed penalty notice issued. We have already covered this.
Miss McIntosh: In my view, that should be in the Bill.
Matthew Green: It is.
Miss McIntosh: With the greatest respect, it is not. The Government have given an undertaking, but it has not been written into the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman has strengthened my argument that it is extremely important that people should be aware of what the offence is and, if those who commit it are to be liable to conviction, it is important for the local authority officer to be given the requisite training.
Column Number: 69
The Minister paid lip service to such training, but the clause does not explain what the training will be. He has not satisfied either me or the Law Society on the training and what level of official will implement the fixed penalty notices.
It is generally assumed from the representations and the responses to consultation that there will be nothing like a 50 per cent. payment rate for fixed penalty notices. The Committee can at least agree about that. As a result, all the calculations for the impact of fixed penalty notices on page 86 of the regulatory impact assessment are redundant.
Alun Michael: I am grateful for the moment or two of entertainment during those exchanges, but I was most let down when the hon. Lady informed us that she had paid the fine. By the minute, I was expecting a warrant for extradition to the United States to appear and her to be dragged off, in which case, I am tempted to say, our proceedings might be rather shorter.
I do not agree with the Law Society's analysis or its comments on such matters. I am tempted to think that there might be a wish to defend the amount of activity in our courts, although I am sure that the views expressed by the Law Society are genuinely held. However, of course there needs to be appropriate training for those issuing fixed penalty notices. It needs to be appropriate to the activities being undertaken and the locality of the work. There will be big differences throughout the country.
I recall my many years as a magistrate. The time wasted on simple, straightforward offences when someone who had committed an offence could pay the fine and let everyone get on with their business, preferably with the offence not being repeated, was enormous. By that, I mean the time of the court, the magistrates, witnesses, police officers who would have been on the streets and local authority officers who would otherwise have been about their business.
The fixed penalty notice is a positive step as it will save time, make life straightforward for people and encourage enforcement authorities to undertake simple procedure, rather than thinking that if they act in response to a particular incident they will have to spend a few days in court, incur costs and waste time.
Matthew Green: Does the Minister agree that there can be genuine concerns about fixed penalty notices, especially with regard to social exclusion? However, that is not likely to apply under the clause, which is about people running businesses either repairing or selling cars on the highway. In such circumstances, we are not considering catching a 15-year-old cycling on the pavement and other less appropriate uses of fixed penalty notices.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I shall not repeat. There is a serious argument about unpaid notices needing to be chased up if there develops a sense in which they mean that nothing happens, rather than prosecution and, therefore, the likelihood of a heavier penalty and more inconvenience, which would be detrimental.
Column Number: 70
As long as it is known that a fixed penalty is a straightforward way to deal with an offence and it is straightforward for the enforcement organisations, the public and the person or company that has offended, I see nothing but positives. As the hon. Gentleman said, the choice is there for a prosecution to be pursued if the fixed penalty is considered inadequate.
4.30 pm
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked what level the penalty might rise to. That will be a matter for the House. Penalty notices will be fixed if a change is made by statutory instrument, and therefore the normal parliamentary scrutiny will apply. The purpose of the provision is to put in place the lesson that very often a fixed penalty notice can be a simple and effective means of conveying the point that certain activities are not acceptable. It is one way of ensuring that a clear, early signal is sent about that type of company activity, but I agree that, if necessary, prosecution should apply. We need to consider the level of penalty to ensure that it is sufficient to make it not profitable to break the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Power to require name and address
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: On reflection, I may have received a parking fine. I do not wish to paint myself whiter than white or disappoint the Minister.
It is nice that we have at least a modicum of agreement, and the Minister accepted that the failure to pay fixed penalty notices to date, without them being increased, concerns the Government. Enforcement is also of some concern to them. Subsection (1) provides an authorised officer of a local authority with the power to require the name and address of an offender if the officer proposes to give him a penalty notice. Subsection (2) makes it an offence to fail to provide the information asked for or to give inaccurate information. It would help to know what level 3 is on the standard scale. Will the scales for clauses 6 and 7 have to be determined by statutory instrument? When does he imagine introducing such an instrument for clause 7, or is he not minded to amend the scales at this time?
For the power to be meaningful, the Minister must prove that it is not discretionary and enforcement will be put in place. Is he convinced that the provision is as strong as it should be, or does he think that it is unnecessarily weak? We would argue that it does not go as far as the Government intend to make clauses 6 and 7 true enforcement procedures; nor does it ensure that fixed penalty notices are not only issued, but paid. If effective, what impact does he think enforcement will have on the total number of receipts?
Column Number: 71
Alun Michael: The hon. Lady asked about the rate at which level 3 is set. It is £1,000. It is not my responsibility to set the levels, and the point of specific levels is to achieve proportionality between different offences, whether the lead Department for those offences is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, DEFRA, the Department for Transport or the Home Office. Proportionality is to be encouraged because it is good for the reputation of the public service and legislation in general.
It is surely right that an authorised officer has the power to demand the name and address of any person to whom they propose to issue a penalty notice. It is surely a basic requirement to ask people to respect the law and those authorised by the law to undertake its enforcement. I hope that the Committee will support the clause unanimously.
Matthew Green: I am sure that the Minister will agree that in relation to penalties issued under clause 3, that is unlikely to be an issue because the very fact that someone is trying to sell their car on the road means that there must be a way of identifying who is trying to sell it, or they would not have any success selling it.
Alun Michael: There are circumstances in which an individual would be associated with a number of vehicles—we are talking about more than one vehicle here. If someone is doing something in the street in relation to a vehicle, it could be important for them to be required to say who they are, for assembling information that may be necessary for either the follow-up to the fixed penalty notice, if it has been addressed appropriately, or any prosecution that might be required if the fixed penalty notice has not been paid. That seems to be common sense, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that where we are trying to protect activities for a business, it is difficult to understand how there could be the slightest problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Use of fixed penalty receipts
Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 8, page 8, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 10, page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
No. 6, in clause 38, page 35, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
No. 7, in clause 52, page 48, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
No. 8, in clause 75, page 60, line 28, leave out subsection (4).
No. 9, in clause 96, page 71, line 25, leave out subsection (4).
Column Number: 72
| 
