Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 399)
WEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER 2005
MS KAREN
BUCK MP AND
MR MIKE
TALBOT
Q380 Mr Martlew: They will be separate?
Mr Talbot: Yes the regulations
are separate.
Mr Martlew: The regulations and guidance
will be different? The adjudicators were querying this when we
had them as witnesses before us as to why do we need the two.
Mr Talbot: The regulations are
the legal things that authorities must do. The statutory guidance
is about giving authorities a steer on how to go about it.
Q381 Mr Martlew: Why have you put
the word "statutory" in front?
Ms Buck: They must take account
of the proposals.
Q382 Mr Martlew: The argument was
that really you only needed the one set and it should be the regulations.
Can we come on to the adjudicators; a large proportion of the
appeals are not contested by the local authorities. Do you believe
that compensation should be then given to the people who have
appealed?
Ms Buck: Pardon?
Q383 Mr Martlew: People have been
through the system with the local authority and they have turned
down their appeal; it has gone to the adjudicator; then the council
do not contest that appeal. Do you think that those people who
have been through that system should be compensated?
Ms Buck: Mr Talbot, can you help
me on this one?
Mr Talbot: Yes I can. There are
different reasons why the authority may not contest the appeal
and some of those may be because new information has been provided
perhaps in the interim. The adjudicators do have some power to
award costs but it is costs rather than compensation, and that
is the current position that we have taken.
Q384 Mr Martlew: So you are saying
costs are fine but you do not believe that compensation should
be given; is that the answer?
Mr Talbot: That is our current
position.
Chairman: So we are customer-friendly
but not to people who do not pay their fines.
Q385 Mr Martlew: We have also heard
of one particular instance today where a particular local authority
had 16 cases found against it for one particular breach of the
regulation in one area. What do you do when you have a situation
where the local authorities are not taking note of what the adjudicators
are saying? Are you going to force them to do that?
Ms Buck: We will certainly be
strengthening the powers of the adjudicator to refer back to local
authorities in some instances to require them to take account
of exceptional circumstances. That is something that will be consulted
on in the new year. Obviously again the issue of good practice
comes into this very strongly, but I am not sure there is a case
that because there are some examples of bad practice there should
be a fundamental change in the structure that affects all authorities.
I am not sure about that individual case and I will be interested
to follow it up in more detail.
Q386 Mr Martlew: Finally on a different
tack, there is the issue of correct signing. We have heard a lot
of complaints about incorrect signing. How do you marry that up
in a city like Durham or Carlisle or in an area like Westminster
with the need to preserve the cityscape itself?
Ms Buck: This is a classic tension
between two very reasonable, competing objectives. We do want
to reduce street clutter; we do want to maintain the quality of
the environment. At the same time it is absolutely clear that
the perception of information not being clear to motorists is
a major cause of concern. Really the key to this is requiring
a regular review and we are insisting certainly where new authorities
will be coming into the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme
that they should conduct a review of their signage and agree that
before they will be given the decriminalised parking enforcement
scheme.
Q387 Chairman: It does not deal with
existing systems, does it? How are you going to deal with the
existing systems?
Ms Buck: Those authorities that
have currently decriminalised parking enforcement are also being
asked to carry out periodic reviews of their signage. Clearly
in some ways there will be a fundamental contradiction in this
and there are not going to be easy answers to it.
Q388 Mr Scott: Minister, we have
heard from yourself and from others today that in some areas it
is a criminal offence, in others it is not a criminal offence;
in some areas the signage is appropriate, in other areas it is
not appropriate; in some areas unloading is fine and permitted,
in other areas it is not. You said just now that you are suggesting
there will be a review; you are asking there will be a review.
As the Minister will you order that there is going to be a review?
Ms Buck: We are saying that when
new authorities—and there are a substantial number of those
who are likely to come at some stage into decriminalised parking
enforcement—we will require them to conduct a review. I
believe that the requirement for authorities that have currently
decriminalised parking enforcement to carry out a review is something
that we will be requiring.
Mr Talbot: Certainly each of them
when they came into the decriminalised parking enforcement regime
would have carried out a review of their signage to make sure
that it was up to scratch. That is one of the 20 things that we
have on our check-list when they apply for the powers. Clearly
it is a matter that over a period of time needs to be kept under
review, not least because there is an incrementalism about parking
and traffic regulation, that things tend to get put one on top
of another and what it needs is every now and again to take a
further look—
Q389 Chairman: Mr Talbot, is that
not why the Department is there, to deal with the problem of "incrementalism",
which is a lovely word? Are you not there to actually give some
fairly straightforward instructions to clarify, to say, "This
is really what you ought to do now", not over a period of
the next 30 or 40 years?
Ms Buck: To be fair, Chairman,
it is not a question of the next 30 or 40 years, but what we do
not want to do is to be constantly requiring those authorities
that have only just reviewed or only very recently—
Q390 Chairman: No, but where there
is clear evidence that the signage of many local authorities is
contributing to confusion, surely—and the adjudicators think
this—the Department has an overall role have to tell people
clearly what the law is, clearly what their responsibilities are,
to make sure that local authorities apply the law fairly and clearly?
Do you not accept that?
Ms Buck: Totally, totally. I accept
completely that that is a requirement on local authorities. I
would also say that there is an element of subjectivity in all
of this that clearly—
Q391 Chairman: I do not think there
is a lot of subjectivity in a sign that cannot be read clearly.
Either one can read a sign or one has difficulty.
Ms Buck: Only to a certain extent
because there is also the problem in some areas where there are
so many competing pressures there will be different regulations
applying at different times.
Chairman: That is precisely the point.
I am sorry, I am going to come back to Mr Scott because it is
his question.
Mr Scott: Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I
am a little bit confused—
Chairman: Well done, if you are only
a little bit confused!
Q392 Mr Scott: I am a little bit
confused but I feel sorry for the motorist who I think is going
to be very confused. 330 authorities, based on what you said earlier,
are not at this moment being asked to review their signage because
they are not coming into the decriminalisation section. What period
of time do you believe it will be before they are all in this,
all doing a review, and we have some form of comprehensive review
of the signage so that perhaps the motorists begin to understand?
Ms Buck: There is an expectation,
well, there is a requirement that signage complies with the requirements
of the Department. I think part of the problem, particularly in
areas where there is a very high pressure on services, is there
are a number of competing requirements, not just in parking but
elsewhere in the street furniture, and where for example in my
own authority you will have residents' parking and the residents'
parking will come off at a certain time, there might be dual use
in some areas, that there is going to be a complexity in that
signage and the signage is frequently difficult for motorists
to follow, precisely because there are so many competing expectations
on that. What we are asking is those authorities that currently
are in decriminalised parking enforcement areas, and they tend
to be those in the most pressurised areas, that those authorities
should review their signage to ensure that they are using current
best practice, that they are minimising any unnecessary information,
and providing the clearest possible information to the motorist.
The areas that are not in decriminalised parking enforcement still
have to meet base standards. They tend not to be the authorities
with the highest level of pressure and the highest level of complexity.
When they come into decriminalised parking enforcement which they
are steadily so doing (but we do not have, as I said, a target
to do so) then they will be required to carry out a full review.
Q393 Mr Scott: Does your Department
monitor it?
Ms Buck: Monitor what, sorry?
Q394 Mr Scott: The reviews that take
place?
Ms Buck: Yes.
Mr Talbot: When they apply they
have to state that they have carried out a review or that by the
time they take on the powers they will have carried out a review
and everything will be up to scratch by the time they take on
the powers. We do not have the resources to go and check every
sign in every authority clearly. We have to take that—
Q395 Mr Scott: So it is not monitored?
Mr Talbot: As part of our process
when we look at the applications, we check with the police and
we check with our colleagues in the Government Office, and if
there were questions raised then we would probably go back to
the authority and say, "Is this all settled yet?", but
we obviously are not in a position to go and do that ourselves.
Q396 Mr Scott: Resources are not
used by your Department—
Ms Buck: There is a statutory
requirement for traffic authorities to place traffic signs which
implement their traffic orders. That is a statute. Clearly, as
with every other form of enforcement, there is a limit to the
resources that you want to spend going round again and again ensuring
that is the case. When there are changes or when new authorities
come in to the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme they
are required to review. Existing authorities are also required
to review.
Q397 Chairman: So you are writing
the statutory guidance and recommendations that local authorities
audit and review their traffic regulation orders and signs?
Ms Buck: Yes.
Mr Talbot: Yes.
Q398 Chairman: And that will be quite
clear. How regularly?
Mr Talbot: I do not think we would
necessarily put a specific time on it. You would expect most authorities
to be looking at their signs every five years.
Q399 Chairman: So you would expect
them to consider them strategically?
Mr Talbot: I think you would expect
the authorities as a matter of general maintenance programmes
and within that kind of context to be looking at their signs every
five years anyway. They might need to review them more frequently
in other circumstances.
Ms Buck: I do not think, Chairman,
we necessarily want to add a huge regulatory burden saying every
three years.
Chairman: I think we had some more questions
to ask you about that. Mr Scott?
| 
