§ Order for Second Reading read.
2.21 pm§ Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The aim of this simple Bill is to right an injustice that has been felt by several of my constituents and others, particularly in the London area. I gather that it is also a matter of concern to the Automobile Association and the Parking Committee for London.
If a car owner takes his car to a repair garage and leaves it there and the owner or an employee of that garage parks the car on a yellow line and does not pay the penalty ticket, the owner of the car has to fork out the money and is held to be guilty, even though he did not have a guilty mind and did not perpetrate an offence.
The regulations and law that govern the offence come under section 66 and schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. The Bill spotlights the injustice and proposes a remedy, although I should be happy to accept any of a number of other ways of solving the problem.
Under the schedule, there are at least two exemptions allowing an owner to escape from carrying the ultimate responsibility: first, if the car has been taken without the owner's consent and wrongfully parked; and secondly if the car is owned by a car rental business and is rented at the time of the offence. The Bill would add a third exemption—if the car was under the control of a repair garage.
I accept that there are some deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill. It will be necessary to find a satisfactory definition of the term "a vehicle repair garage", but I believe that that problem could easily be solved. It will also be necessary—I believe that the Bill may not yet be strong enough to do this—to be sure that responsibility rests firmly with the repair garage if it is transferred away from the owner. In other words, the repair garage will ultimately be found responsible as at present it is not. I accept that some changes will be needed if the Bill is to achieve that. I also accept that another way in which to solve the problem would be to deal with it as part of a more comprehensive review of the 1991 Act, which a number of people feel is due.
The problem does not affect many people at present, but it has the potential to do so. People who take their car to a garage to be repaired could be caught by the existing provisions, which have recently been stiffened by the result of a court case involving a Miss Francis and Wandsworth borough council. It went through various stages and eventually reached the Court of Appeal. The court's interpretation was more inflexible than previous interpretations and made it more difficult for local authorities to exercise their discretion.
Without wishing to breach the integrity of the existing parking system in London which, by and large, works efficiently and well, and while accepting that this problem is on the margins, I believe that there is a sufficient injustice here that needs to be remedied. What is happening at the moment is an affront to natural justice, because people who have no guilt are being found guilty. For that reason, I hope that the Bill will be given a good hearing by the House.
§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and to the Minister for my late arrival.
Although we have every sympathy with what the hon. Member for Beckenham is attempting to do, we feel that the Bill is rather badly drafted, in that it could mean that neither the owner of the car nor the garage was found liable for any penalty charge imposed. We are concerned that a complex bureaucratic situation could be created. I know a little about the problem—
§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)A little knowledge is dangerous.
§ Ms Jackson"A little learning" is, I think, the exact phrase.
One of my constituents suffered the fate described by the hon. Member for Beckenham. He left his car outside the garage for necessary repair and, unfortunately, received a penalty charge because the parking restrictions came into force half an hour after he had left the car and deposited the keys in the garage. The possibility of bureaucratic difficulty, given that there are variables in parking zones throughout the 33 London boroughs, leads the Opposition to believe that, far from improving the situation, the Bill would make it extraordinarily worse.
The charge is never more than £20 or £30. I believe that under existing legislation, a driver can attempt to claim the money from the garage.
§ Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)I had hoped to make a speech in this debate, but as that seems unlikely, I shall make my point now. I was charged £30 when a garage had control of my car. When I failed to pay the £30 because I was remonstrating about it, the fine was increased to £60, and while I was still in correspondence on the subject, it went up to £90. It is not, therefore, true to say that the fine is only £20 or £30. It is monstrous that someone who is not in control of the car and who has committed it to a garage should be fined when it is in no way his fault.
§ Ms JacksonThe hon. Gentleman has my every sympathy. I can well understand that he feels somewhat irate, but he should understand that such a provision would open the door to the possibility that someone other than the owner of the car—be they family or friend—could be using it and could fall outside the remit of the Bill if a penalty charge were incurred for parking in a zone where parking was not allowed.
My final point relates to the number of appeals that have been lodged. I understand that the figures are kept by individual London boroughs. We received replies from Ministers to the effect that no such figures were kept centrally and obtaining them would be prohibitive, but I understand that there have been only six such cases in the past year—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday 25 April.