§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether they are aware that breaches of the parking regulations in London are now so frequent that it is impossible to keep a record of the previous offences of persons convicted of these offences; and that in consequence all offences are treated as 981 first offences and the heavier penalties appropriate to persistent offenders hardly ever imposed; and (2) whether the purpose of the parking regulations is to keep the streets clear or merely to provide a regular source of public revenue from fines.]
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, it is true that it is impracticable for the police to keep records of such offences; but the fixed penalty system, which is the principal means of enforcing the parking regulations in London, does not in any event lend itself to distinguishing persistent offenders. The fixed penalty system is effectively serving the purpose of the regulations, which is to keep kerbside space free for moving traffic, for access to premises, and for short-term parking at meters.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that this system of fixed penalties is singularly ineffective, in view of the fact that the number of breaches of the regulations amounts to several hundreds a week in the Metropolitan area? Will he consider substituting computers for live magistrates for the purpose of assessing these penalties, in view of the fact that human beings are not able to maintain efficiency at the speed of working now required?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I rather think I should have to employ a computer to translate the onus of the noble Lady's question. I feel that the existing regulations are in fact carrying out their purpose, which is to keep the roads clear, and although there is a large number of offences there is no means of proving whether or not these are committed by persistent offenders.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, has the noble Earl no consideration for the time and worry of magistrates who give their time in such circumstances?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, the point of the fixed penalty system is to avoid magistrates having to give of their time, because the penalty is already paid.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, does the noble Earl really think that the streets of London are clear of kerbside parking in illegal 982 places? If so, does he walk the streets of London at any time?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I frequently walk the streets of London and I have a certain sympathy or reaction to the question, because I have recently been divested of £2 for the heinous offence of parking a car in a place where there was 1½ hours' unexpired time. I think the streets of London are considerably freer of stationary vehicles and more mobile than they used to be.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, the noble Earl may be surprised to learn that it fell to my lot recently to have to dispose of 200 breaches of the regulations in the course of a single morning in a single court. Will he consider adopting the more efficient or more deterrent practice, which is apparently followed by the police in Rio de Janiero, of letting down the tyres of cars illegally parked?
EARL FERRERSI think the noble Lady will appreciate that if that were to happen it would create even more stationary vehicles.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, would the noble Earl look into the shocking congestion in Whitehall and Parliament Street yesterday afternoon, which I believe was brought about by a gathering of Conservative ladies who had come to London? It really was slow work getting through Whitehall to Trafalgar Square.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, without wishing to cause offence to the noble Lord, that is rather a different question. But if I am within the bounds of practice of the House, I would remind him that Conservative ladies are not necessarily the same as Royal Marines.