| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Jan 2007 : Column 373WH—continued
As the Transport Committee said, failure to comply with parking restrictions is antisocial. Hon. Members today have made that point and I share their view. Failure to comply with parking restrictions causes traffic disruption, congestion, delays to public transport and, as has been illustrated this afternoon, danger to pedestrians and other motorists. It is the job of the Government to ensure that the framework for parking policy and enforcement is even-handed
between different types of road user, and between road user and enforcer. That is what we are trying to achieve, and that is what the Committee wants.
The Committee's report identified eight characteristics that a revitalised parking system should demonstrate. My hon. Friend asked what we agreed with, what we did not agree with and why. I shall start with the good news—that is always a good place to start—which is what we agree with.
The points on which we are very much in accord are the proposal to encourage local authorities to set performance standards and measure their achievements against them, and the proposal that authorities should know that they must be clear what regulations are in force and how compliance is best achieved. The report also talks about emphasising the need for appropriate recruitment, remuneration and training to help to ensure a professional parking service throughout the country. We agree that it is important to make clear the process for challenging and appealing against penalty charge notices, to strengthen the status and profile of the adjudication service, as well as the internal scrutiny of parking departments, and that local authorities should be told to develop parking strategies that meet local objectives, focusing particularly on congestion, road safety and accessibility. I am pleased to say that we agreed with the majority of the report's detailed recommendations.
A point on which we differed—our response made this clear—was that while the Government share the Committee's desire to see as many local authorities as possible taking on responsibility for parking enforcement, we believe that it is for them to decide when to apply for that power. In England, 193 local authorities have taken on the power to enforce parking regulations, and a further 20 applications are in the pipeline.
Graham Stringer: I was unable to find out how much of the population is covered by decriminalised parking, and perhaps my hon. Friend could give me that information now, or write to me.
Gillian Merron: I am grateful for the question and will be happy to write to my hon. Friend with that important detail.
We expect a number of authorities to see the benefits of having control over enforcement, as well as making their own parking policies, when the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 are in place. However, one recommendation on which we differ from the Committee is that for some authorities it would not make sense to take on that responsibility if they did not have enough of a challenge with parking. We believe that we should leave it to local areas to decide, although we are happy for applications to be made for decriminalised parking.
Parking for disabled people causes great concern, as we all know from our constituencies. The Committee emphasised, and we agree, that it is important for the needs of disabled people to be considered when making parking provision. We have produced detailed advice, which has been disseminated widely. Equally important is the need to ensure that the blue badge scheme is enforced so that it continues to be valuable to badge holders. We acknowledge the role that a national
database can play in that and are concluding research into the feasibility of such a database. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that we introduced a key power for parking enforcement officers to inspect badges from September 2006, and we are taking forward additional enforcement measures to protect the scheme.
Mrs. Miller: Before the Minister moves on from blue badges for disabled people, will she comment on a point that I raised about my constituents’ problems if they have children under two and are not eligible for blue badges? That causes a great deal of concern in my constituency and throughout the country, as evidenced by the fact that more than 50 hon. Members signed my early-day motion on the issue.
Gillian Merron: I assure the hon. Lady that I was going to deal with that when I came to hon. Members’ individual points, but I am happy to bring it forward. She may be aware that we are consulting on draft new regulations to issue improved guidance to local authorities to extend the scheme to under-twos and those with temporary disabilities. That consultation is in response to concerns that people have raised with us directly or through their Members of Parliament.
Mrs. Miller: The Minister said that improved guidance would be issued to local authorities to enable them to extend blue badge eligibility to children under two years old. If local authorities were keen to put that in place sooner rather than later, would she be generally supportive?
Gillian Merron: The hon. Lady knows that currently it is not possible to provide for children under two years old. It is important to get on with the consultation to introduce the regulations properly so that they are workable. I stress that the Government are already on board with the arrangements and that we shall progress with them.
The Committee’s report was a key input to our consultation on the introduction of regulations and guidance for implementing the parking provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004. We consulted in July last year on proposals for a fairer and more consistent parking system. The consultation made a number of proposals. I hope that they reassure hon. Members who have taken an interest in the debate. It included the proposal that local authorities regularly review their parking policies in consultation with stakeholders to ensure that they deliver the authority’s transport policies, and that as far as possible they meet the needs of their road users.
The consultation also proposed that authorities publish their policies and reports so the public know that authorities use parking to deliver transport rather than financial objectives. It is a common concern. The consultation recommended dedicated training for everyone involved in civil parking enforcement, meaning people working not only at the kerbside but in the committee chamber, because parking policy permeates all areas of an authority.
The consultation also proposed that wheel clamping and vehicle removal be used only for the most
persistent evaders of parking penalty charges; that persistent parking evaders should be targeted through a nationwide database; and that improvements be made to the appeals process by clarifying the cases that adjudicators can consider. I hope hon. Members agree that most of the proposals reflect the conclusions of the Transport Committee. Having heard this afternoon’s debate, they also mirror the concerns that Members rightly raise in the House.
There was near unanimity among the responses to the 20 questions in the consultation document. I take it as a tribute to the work of the group that supported the Department, including the adjudicators, the local authorities and the motoring organisations, that responses were generally in favour of the consultation’s proposals.
Like the Committee’s report, today’s debate is timely: it comes as we prepare to lay regulations before Parliament. For the benefit of Members, I shall update the House on the timetable, as the regulations will be laid in mid-2007 and come into force in 2008. Progress is a month or two behind the anticipated timetable. However, I assure Members that the delay has arisen because of the additional time we need to produce regulations that most effectively deal with the problem of persistent evaders. The concern was raised today.
I shall refer in detail to several points that Members have raised. I hope that I manage to cover all angles. For any that I do not cover, I undertake to write to hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich raised several points about the Government’s response to the report, one of which was about the cost of illegal parking and of accidents. The Department does not have information about that; records are kept locally. In all honesty, I am doubtful about how consistently they are kept, but my hon. Friend raises an important point about the information available to us.
The Government said that the Committee’s point about the pay or challenge system had merit. I was asked to explain the response. Although we see the merit of the suggestion, the glut of information on any one parking ticket would present a practical challenge. We would have considerable difficulty taking the idea forward, and we are trying not to confuse the public. I am sure my hon. Friend shares my concern about that.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Traffic schemes will be acceptable to the public only if they understand and support them. No matter how many laws we pass, if the public do not support them, they will have to be changed in the final analysis. Will the Minister provide me with a simple undertaking? If there is a way in which the Government can encapsulate the implications of the appeal schemes, put them on the ticket and ensure that the public receive adequate information at every point, will she do so? It would transform the public’s attitude towards the appeals service.
Gillian Merron: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend and re-emphasise that I am concerned to ensure that the public are fully informed about and confident in the system. Wherever possible, including in the circumstances to which she refers, we want to achieve that. I am happy to return to her and her Committee on that point.
My hon. Friend also asked about checking applications by local authorities for powers to decriminalise parking. Local authorities must ensure and show that their system is up to the required standard. They are accountable to their electorate, in particular, because in addition to full information, accountability is important.
My hon. Friend also asked about the Department’s analysis of the impact of discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) also raised that point, and I shall refer to it when I address his points. I continue to watch with close interest the use of discretion by parking attendants in Manchester. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s points, which made it clear that discretion has several benefits. I am delighted to hear that contraventions have been reduced; it is good news. Manchester is an experienced and professional local authority, and the system requires such an organisation if it is to be sustained. I shall continue to take an interest in the lessons that we can learn from Manchester’s experience.
Consultation document responses demonstrated considerable support for providing statutory guidance to local authorities on re-offering a 50 per cent. discount after formal representations. Guidance will be undertaken. I hope that my hon. Friend will be glad about another important point: the differential between penalty charge notices. Consultation respondents supported the move, and a similar proposal in London gained strong support. We want the system in place throughout England, and we are working with councils to introduce it so that it shows different PCN levels, such as serious, for parking on a double yellow line, and less serious, for overstaying. We want to include those levels in the regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and other Members raised a point about foreign-owned vehicles and access to overseas records by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The agency is aware, as I am, of the growing importance of establishing a robust cross-border data-sharing process for criminal and administrative matters. The agency is engaging proactively with EU authorities to address this matter. It is not easy and I shall continue to press for progress. Many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke relate to the difficulties created by economic success, to which I referred in my opening remarks. She referred to full employment, the qualification of Basingstoke as a growth point, which will attract extra Government investment, and the quality of life enjoyed by her constituents.
I shall address planning policy guidance note 3 on housing. Parking provision is a local decision because over-providing car parking is also a challenge for local areas. Local authorities should, and are, providing alternatives to car use, although, as we know, cars have a role to play. However, local authorities are best placed to decide the level of parking provision and the number of new developments. That is their job. The hon. Lady referred to a change of emphasis in planning regulations, which she suggested meant that the Government recognise that they originally got it wrong. I take a different view: the change in emphasis shows Government responsiveness to arguments that have been made. Parking for new housing is a local
matter and we encourage the right decisions—we have produced guidance on that. I hope that she welcomes my comments on under-twos.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blakley—
Gillian Merron: I apologise—Blackley. I will not be welcome there.
Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend is always welcome.
My hon. Friend shared with us his soft spot for a parking attendant in Scarborough. I am sure that he was glad to have been commended. The experience in Manchester that we have heard about shows that a balance needs to be struck between consistency and the provision of a framework for local authorities by central Government, and giving them the space to develop a system that best meets local needs. I think that the regulations will do that.
My hon. Friend referred to parking charges, which, in my view, are for a scarce resource, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said. I emphasise that enforcement of those charges does not generate general revenue. That would be the wrong incentive. The purpose of our parking enforcement policy is to keep traffic flowing and improve road safety—I cannot emphasise that enough. The regulations require that revenue be ring fenced for parking, passenger transport, environmental and road improvement projects, and, in London only, for road maintenance.
A point was raised a couple of times about pavement parking. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a serious local matter raising a lot of interest. Enforcement is the responsibility of the police or local authority. Where the local authority is responsible, enforcement is known to be much more effective when combined with publicity. We heard the example this afternoon of the campaign run by the Evening Telegraph in Kettering to get information across, to which people responded. Of course, where there is a particular and ongoing problem, local authorities can use physical measures to prevent parking. They can also introduce bans on pavement parking using traffic regulation orders. The advantage is that those are for a particular area and a sign is necessary so people know about it. It is difficult to make signs for a wholesale ban because people tend to ignore them. But that is another possibility.
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) referred to the local decriminalisation of parking. Once a local authority is responsible, enforcement will be in its hands. I take the point that of course the police often have higher priorities, which I imagine is one of the reasons that the Select Committee spoke out in favour of decriminalised parking. That is why we allow and encourage local authorities to have such powers.
I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s comments on staff parking at the local hospital. That is clearly a local decision. I wondered whether his party has made a commitment to pay for such parking using NHS funds. Those decisions need to be made. Although I do
not have the figures for NHS funding in Kettering—regrettably—I would be surprised if it were the one area in the country that had not seen record levels of Government investment, a reduction in waiting lists or an increase in the number of doctors and nurses. However, if that is the case, I am sure that he will tell me and I shall alert colleagues. But I do not accept the link that he made.
I shall refer again to the campaign run by the Evening Telegraph against what the hon. Gentleman called inconsiderate parking. That was about getting the co-operation of drivers and informing them. It emphasises a point in which I very much believe—prevention is better than enforcement. We spend a lot of time—understandably—talking about enforcement, but, of course, that takes place after the event. If we are to keep traffic moving, prevention is preferable. He raised another issue about road widths and suggested that they were being reduced to squeeze in more houses on new developments. I can assure him that local authorities must comply with design standards. If he has any particular concerns, I am sure that he will raise them as appropriate.
The hon. Member for Southport referred to training. We support strongly the need for training at all levels in the parking industry, as I said in my earlier remarks, and we are working with and support the British Parking Association’s sector skills strategy to increase skills in the industry. That is welcome because many in the industry feel overlooked and that they get a bad press, in many cases. Training and support would be very welcome.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) made a strong call for greater central control and regulation, which I was interested to hear. My intention is to introduce regulations and guidance that enable people to get parking right locally, rather than to run things from the centre. My feeling is that that is what people think is right—local solutions to meet local needs.
I have dealt with the details of a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in my comments about the regulation and guidance. However, he also asked where parking fitted in with our thinking on the economy, the success of business, and so on. Parking is of course key to our thoughts on local transport planning. The guidance on the second local transport plan brings about that integrated approach, because it focuses on four key outcomes, one of which is tackling the congestion. The approach to parking is of course part of that.
I should also like to mention scrutiny, transparency and people understanding the situation, which are important. The Audit Commission can already scrutinise a local highways authority’s parking management performance and has published a number of inspection reports of individual council’s parking services. However, my hope and intention, through the guidance and the regulations, is that the message should be loud and clear—namely, that the approach should not be about hiding away from a parking policy, but about sharing with the general public what that policy is about and what it means, and about prevention, rather than dealing with enforcement after
the event. In other words, the job is not to catch people out, but to inform, to keep traffic moving and to keep roads safe.
I finish where I started, by saying that the Government very much welcome the Committee’s report and largely share the views that it sets out. We have set out in the consultation how we plan to take forward the parking provisions in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. The Government are determined to introduce a parking enforcement system that is fairer, more consistent and more transparent. We believe that the regulations and the guidance to implement the parking provisions will achieve that. I hope that all hon. Members present will support the Government in our initiative, which I welcome, to strengthen the system of parking enforcement, to produce tough new measures to overhaul parking enforcement in England, and to enable local authorities to use powers to keep traffic moving and make the road safer.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |