§ 6. Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Transport why, in fixing the charge for the removal of abandoned vehicles and those illegally or obstructively parked, she made no distinction between the deliberate intent to abandon permanently and the temporary and inadvertent nuisance caused in the other cases.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael)The law distinguishes between these offences and provides widely different penalties for them. The removal charge is intended only to cover the cost of removing the vehicle, and this is unaffected by the intention of the person leaving it.
§ Mr. DanceYes, but would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it appears that the owners of badly parked cars are now subsidising the owners of vehicles deliberately left on the public highway?
§ Mr. CarmichaelNo, Sir. The Public Accounts Committee had looked into this and it was suggested that the cost of removals should be increased to the present rate of, I think, £4 10s. in London and Birmingham and £4 elsewhere except motorways. The charge is intended to cover the actual cost of removal of the vehicle and while occasionally a "non-runner" is more expensive to remove than a "runner," there is sometimes great difficulty with a "runner" because it has an anti-theft device.
§ Mr. MappBut will my hon. Friend try to even out the varying charges in the same town for police removal, which is separate from local authority removal? May we at least have some uniformity here?
§ Mr. CarmichaelI will look into this. I think that there is a distinction between the police and the local authority, in that the latter may know that certain vehicles are completely abandoned, whereas the police are merely removing a vehicle which is an obstruction. There is a difference.