CONTROL OF OFF-STREET PARKING (Hansard, 19 May 1969)

§ Captain W. Elliot
I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 43, line 30 after 'place', insert: 'provided that any such person authorised by the local authority or the Council shall have specialised training for this responsibility'. The Clause, as drafted, not only enforces the most stringent and detailed conditions before a licence for off-street parking is granted, but it is backed up by indiscriminate inspection. I use the word "indiscriminate", because subsection (5)(a) states that: … any person authorised … by the Council … may carry out a detailed inspection of a parking area. That detailed inspection may, as we know, include taking extracts from any accounts or other records.
142 It is not uncommon for inspectors to be appointed for various purposes, but the operators of these parking places have the right to expect that a suitably qualified person will be sent. These operators are busy people. They do not want to have to waste time on teaching an inspector what he should get out of the accounts, and he will not be able to get out anything worth while unless he is taught. That work could take up to half a day, which is unreasonable. The Amendment would mean that only properly qualified persons could be sent by the council. The Parliamentary Secretary may argue that that is what they do anyhow, but I am not sure that they would do so. They may not recruit proper personnel but may send someone to do this work who does not know what he is looking for. I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this small, but important, Amendment.

§ Mr. Ogden
The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) said that he sincerely hoped that my hon. Friend would accept this Amendment. Equally sincerely, I hope that he will not. The hon. and gallant Member has done great service in the Royal Navy. Parts of Queen's Regulations specify that an officer or rating shall do certain duties. If a civilian came along and said that such a person should have specialised training for those duties there would be howls of protest from the hon. and gallant Member.
I do not know whether he has had experience of any local authority, whether Greater London Council or the smallest parish council in the country, but he should know that no local authority would send to this kind of job any Tom, Dick or Harry, however distinguished personally and however menial the task. Local authorities take the greatest care to see that those who have to undertake duties on their behalf are properly qualified. The fact that this Amendment appears on the Notice Paper after the discussion we had in Committee will be bitterly resented by many who have given good service to local authorities.
I hope that my hon. Friend will reject the Amendment as forcefully as possible.

Mr. Bob Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), for he has forcibly answered the argument put by 143 the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). Particularly bearing in mind the debate we had in Committee, it is clear that the hon. and gallant Member casts doubt on the responsibility of local authorities. I repeat what I said in Committee; I have complete confidence in the local authorities and those employed by them, and the Amendment is completely needless.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine
I had not sought to intervene in this debate because I thought my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Capt. W. Elliot) made the points which needed to be made, but I am getting tired of hon. Members opposite deliberately distorting the situation. The Parliamentary Secretary knows better than to do that. We argued this matter out in Committee. He knows the anxiety we have that the bureaucracy set up to deal with this legislation should be of a sort and of a sufficient extent that the large number of people who are not strictly employees of local authorities and are brought in to help with this work shall be qualified.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) know this. It has been explained fully. Yet today they have deliberately tried to make cheap party points in the hope of telling everyone what a marvellous job they are doing for local government. They will need to do a great deal more than that to avoid the appalling difficulties they are getting into.

§ Mr. Ogden
How can one be either a partial employee of a local authority or not a partial employee? He is either employed in local government service or he is not so employed.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine
I spelled this out in Committee. It may be necessary to use traffic wardens. They have been used for an increasingly large number of functions which were previously carried out by the police. This is precisely the kind of work they could be considered fit to do, but they do not always come up to the standard required.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
Someone should intervene to correct the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), who has given rise to so many misunderstandings in the past, including the editorial 144 which appeared in the Daily Sketch on 7th May, which said the kind of thing he claimed in Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is deliberately trying to evade the point.
The argument we have always made is that in city centres there are certain situations and sites where a great deal of money can be made by charging for parking and that such places should be under surveillance and inspection. We are not in favour of bureaucracy on this side of the House but we do not favour people being able to make private profit out of public land in city centres, the value of which the community has created.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has made this puerile charge time and again, and it is well-established that his target is a national organisation which indulges in this activity. He has never produced a shred of evidence to substantiate the snide allegations which he continually tries to make on this important subject, and we all know that there is no evidence.

Mr. Bob Brown
I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 43, line 37, at end insert: 'but if any such person discloses to any other person otherwise than in the performance of his duty any information with regard to the operation of that parking place or to any trade secret obtained by him at that parking place or from any such examination, or if any member or officer of the local authority to whom any such information is disclosed by reason of his official position discloses that information to any other person otherwise than in the performance of his duty, that person or, as the case may be, that member or officer shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100'. The effect is to make it an offence for any member or officer of the G.L.C. or of a London borough to disclose, other than in the performance of his duty, any any information which he may glean by an inspection. It covers wrongful disclosure of information both by the person carrying out the inspection of the car park and by any local authority member or officer to whom that information is passed in the course of duty.
This provision will be particularly helpful to local authority staff in resisting any improper approaches from criminal elements which seem to hang 145 around the Metropolis from time to time. The Amendment provides only a second line of defence because, as I have emphasised before, the first line of defence is the high standard of integrity of local authority members and staff.

Mr. Gresham Cooke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the Amendment. It is along the lines of one I moved in Committee. This is a valuable end important point. Large sums of money are involved in multi-storey car parks, and thousands of £s can be involved every day. There is a danger from criminals wanting to find out how much money is going through, and, of course, there is also danger from competitors who might want to do a little industrial espionage.
The danger from criminal elements is not to be underrated. I gave examples in Committee of criminals approaching secretaries and typists in insurance companies to try to obtain copies of lists of insured properties so that the houses could be burgled. That is the kind of approach that can be made by the criminal fraternity. The Amendment is, therefore, a protection to the official against any person who approaches him in that he can say that it would be a criminal offence if he handed over a copy or a statement of any kind about a car park.
I welcome this provision. I am sure that officials will welcome it because it will be of help to them. It will certainly be of help to the operators of car parks in London.

§ Mr. Ogden
I shall not follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) into the esoteric realms of industrial espionage, fascinating thought it is to think of some smart character approaching a mini-skirted secretary and saying, "Tell me your secrets". All this Amendment would do in such a case would be to put up the price by £100 if he were caught.
To show my impartiality in this matter, I objected to Amendment No. 24, which we have just disposed of, and I do not think that this Amendment is much better. In my view, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has given way, though, perhaps in good faith. I can envisage many more important things which local government officers have to 146 do and many more valuable secrets which they have to keep than those relating to car parks, but they are not covered under regulations by a fine of £100 if an officer talks about a planning development application, a road scheme, or something of that sort.
In my view, this Amendment is unnecessary and undesirable, and it does my hon. Friend no credit.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine
The House will not have missed the implication of the Government's refusal of our proposal in Amendment No. 24 on the ground that one could trust the local authorities and they were beyond reproach, and their immediate moving of this Amendment which would fine officials of a local authority, apparently on the justification that it is better to have some sort of sanction which officials can use as a means of excusing themselves for not committing crimes.

Mr. Bob Brown
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that this Amendment is different from the one which the Opposition sought to introduce, which would have sent local authority servants to prison on summary conviction.
I reiterate what I said earlier. I should be very surprised if this penalty ever had to be inflicted. I am convinced that local authority staffs are in the main—I almost said without exception—people of outstanding character.

Mr. Gresham Cooke
I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 43, line 37, at end insert: Provided that such accounts as may be examined by any such person shall not include the general profit and loss accounts kept by the holder of the licence for the purposes of his business. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall the discussion we had in Committee about the powers of inspectors to look at operators' accounts. The hon. Gentleman then said: I emphasise that the accounts"— that is, the accounts to be inspected— are not the general profit and loss accounts but only the accounts which the operator will be required to keep by the conditions of his licence … There is no intention whatever that local authority representatives should have a general power to examine all books 147 and accounts, including those which a car park operator might keep for his own private business purposes".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th May, 1969; c. 461.] The hon. Gentleman gave that excellent assurance. I have put the effect of it into words in this Amendment. I am sure that he will have no difficulty in accepting it.

Mr. Bob Brown
I wish it were as easy to accept the Amendment as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) suggested. We are not, however, entirely happy about its wording, which might enable an operator to evade the inspection provisions by including all his accounts in his general profit and loss accounts.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want this type of facility to be available to an individual of questionable character operating a car park. The clear intention is that inspection should not include the general profit and loss accounts. I am instructed by the Minister to say that he will carefully consider when the Bill goes to another place how he can make the intention clearer.

§ Mrs. Thatcher
I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for accepting the spirit of the Amendment and for saying that he will see what can be done. We do not want the accounts to be open to inspection at all, but one-tenth of a loaf is better than no loaf.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
At last the hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) have given themselves away. They want as little surveillance of these matters as possible because they know that once an operator gets possession of derelict land and a licence he is in a very privileged position. Once he gets hold of a parking permit and permission to accommodate cars, often at exorbitant charges every day, the last thing that they want the taxpayers and ratepayers to know is how much profit he makes.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I feel that since such privileges are to be conferred on operators of parking facilities in city centres, the first thing that we should know, apart from their charges, is how much profit they are making. I have always said that this kind of operation 148 should be confined to local authorities so that the benefit goes to the community and not to private speculators.

§ Mrs. Thatcher
In so far as profit is made, the accounts will be available to the inspector of taxes and tax will be paid on it. The inspector is the proper authority for looking at accounts. We do not deny that in any way.

§ Mr. Huckfield
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because that serves only to substantiate my point; namely, that these operators are the sort of people who engage in a whole range of activities. National Car Parks, the favourite example of the hon. Member for Twickenham, operates not only car parking spaces but garages. If this concern is to operate facilities of this kind, it is vital that in the public interest people should know how much they are being milked and being used in making profits and how much those profits contribute to the general profits and losses of the company.

Mr. Gresham Cooke
I do not know why the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) should introduce these unpleasant accusations. I was trying to be friendly and helpful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who had graciously done what I wished to be done in Amendment No. 25. He has acceded to the principle of Amendment No. 26. I thought that we were in a happy atmosphere.
However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to indulge in that kind of argument, there is plenty of time to do so. I could prove that the Bill is very bureaucratic and widely drawn and gives room for snooping by all sorts of inspectors if wrongly used. However, in view of the pleasant way in which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Bob Brown
I be to move Amendment No. 27, in page 44, line 30, at end insert— 'by giving notice in writing for the purpose to the local authority which shall include a statement certifying either that the holder is the only person entitled to any interest in the licensed premises or that not less than twenty-one days before the date of the notice the holder has notified all other persons known to him to be so entitled of his intention to serve the notice'. 149 The Amendment provides that where a car park operator wishes to surrender his licence, he should, if other people have interests in the premises, notify them of his intentions before giving up the licence. This has to be done by the operator sending with his surrender notice a certificate saying either that he is the only interested party or that anybody else concerned with the car park's operation has been given at least 21 days' notice of his intentions to give the business up. This provision is paralleled by one in the Planning Acts.
The liaison envisaged in the Amendment is likely to be carried out as a normal commercial practice, but the object of the Amendment is simply to underpin this.

Mr. Bob Brown
I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 45, line 14, after 'licence', insert: 'and who does not show that the contravention or failure was due to an act or omission of a person not connected with the operation of the licensed parking place which the persons so connected could not reasonably have been expected to prevent'. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the operator of a car park does not commit an offence where a breach of the conditions of his licence results from the action of the public over which he might have little control; for example, the type of situation discussed in Committee where a member of the public parks his car in a section of the car park earmarked for short-term parking and overstays the limit, or even leaves his car there for several days.
It would not be right to penalise the operator for such actions, and the Amendment accordingly provides that the operator will be guilty of an offence, and thus liable to a fine and the possibility of revocation of his licence, only if the breach of the condition of the licence results from a deliberate act or omission on his part.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine
The Amendment covers part of the Bill which is crucial to the future of long-term investment in car parks. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues in the Ministry know what a magnificent job has been done by the private investor in the provision of off-street car parks. He 150 is equally aware that the company named by his hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is the largest operator, usually in partnership with, or as the agent of, the local authorities. I assume that it is reasonable to conclude that a degree of service and non-exploitation is involved in the partnership, or it would not be repeated time and again by one local authority after another.
I believe that it is the intention of the company ultimately to go public and then the hon. Gentleman will have all the information he requires, and if he has any sense he might buy some shares in the company, so that he can join in the exploitation—

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
I cannot afford to.

§ Mr. Heseltine
Few of us these days can afford any form of capital saving as a result of the Government's activities. The hon. Gentleman is no exception to this general rule.
My main concern here is the point completely avoided by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—the effect on the investor who lends his money to the operator for the provision of off-street car parking if the operator is guilty of an offence leading to successful prosecution and revocation of licence there is nothing in the Amendment to protect the investor.
This is not a party point, and I beg the hon. Gentleman to look at the question again when the Bill goes to another place, because it is crucial that private resources continue to be made available for the building of off-street parking facilities. If such investments, usually made by large institutional investors, are put at risk as a result of one, albeit serious, mistake by an operator, this must have the effect of tending to dry up the supply of investment finance. It is not enough to try to protect the operator from the vagaries of the general public. It is esential to protect the investor from the vagaries of the operator.
I beg the Ministry to find a way of covering the situation where the investor may have put as much as £200,000 in a company and the operators have lost the licence. The result of the revocation of the licence would be that there would be no way for the investor who had lent money to the company to claim a charge 151 on a valuable asset. All that would be left would be the bricks and mortar, which would not carry the licence to operate a garage. This crucial point should be dealt with before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Bob Brown
I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 46, line 22, leave out from 'mean' to end of line 25 and insert— 'parking for a continuous period exceeding, or, as the case may be, not exceeding, four hours or such longer period as may be prescribed'. 9.15 p.m.
This Amendment will enable the Greater London Council, through its regulations, to introduce flexibility into the definition of long-term and short-term parking. Subsection (14) draws a rigid boundary between these two categories of parking, depending on whether the motorist stays for more than or up to four hours. The council will be able to prescribe differently for different circumstances or areas.
The definition is important, as the control of charges and the allocation of parking spaces may be made in relation to the various categories of parking specified in subsection 4(b), two important categories being long-term and short-term parking.

Mr. Gresham Cooke
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has moved the Amendment, since, again, we drew this matter to his attention. The scheme as originally envisaged was too inflexible and parking rules were based on exactly four hours. We pointed out that many people would want to park for periods other than four-hour periods, and many different circumstances would arise in different parts of the country.
The Amendment meets with the points of criticism which we made earlier.