§ 2.48 p.m.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy 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 how many parking offences there were in the Metropolitan Police Area of London in 1971 and in 1972; how many were dealt with by fixed penalty notices; and in what percentage of cases the fixed penalty failed to be collected.
THE MINISTER or STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS)My Lords, in the Metropolitan Police District in 1971 there were 1,183,775 parking offences or alleged offences. There were 1,014,316 dealt with by fixed penalty notices and in 45 per cent. of these cases payment was waived or not made. The only information available for 1972 is that 1,257,250 fixed penalty notices were issued for parking offences and that during the first six months payment was waived, or not made, in 44 per cent. of such cases.
LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORDMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply to my Question. Is he aware that he confirms the figures given last week by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Molson? Is he also aware that these figures confirm that the fixed penalty machinery for dealing with parking offences is breaking down, with the result that cars are now being parked not only on single yellow lines, but on double yellow lines throughout the metropolis and so choking up the important traffic arteries? Will my noble friend say, in the light of what his noble friend said in the debate last week about considering legislation, when it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with legislation in this matter?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was as well informed as he always is. I know that there is a good deal of concern about parking on single or indeed double yellow lines, and I know 1240 that legislation (I think my noble friend is referring to liability legislation) has been suggested by the Commissioner of Police, the G.L.C. and a Select Committee of another place recently. I do not think I can go any further than the announcement made by the Government in a written Statement in another place last month, but my noble friend can be assured that we have this very much in our minds at the moment and are considering it.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, would not my noble friend agree that some direction might be given to the police that cars should be removed when they are blocking main traffic arteries and to worry less about cars parked in cul-de-sacs or in minor roads? At present, the tendency seems to be to try to score cheap runs by removing the latter which are not causing obstruction and not attending to the former which are really holding up the flow of traffic along the main arteries of the whole metropolis.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I think the fixed penalty procedure is not normally used where there is a dangerous obstruction of the sort my noble friend has suggested. Where that is the case, the police usually deal with it by the ordinary means of prosecution, and if necessary they remove the vehicle. The figures that I have given would not have taken into account the dangerous obstruction to traffic.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware how much time is spent by police officers trying to collect unpaid fines, hour after hour, when they ought to be engaged in more useful work? Has he been in touch with the New York traffic authorities on this matter, where something like 5 million tickets are outstanding? They now put a clamp on the offside rear wheel and the car owner can take the car only if he pays the fine on the spot.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I know that an enormous amount of time is wasted on this problem and, I am afraid, sometimes wasted to no effect. That is one of the reasons why we are considering the matter.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, so that we can understand this problem, would 1241 the noble Viscount give us a precise definition of the word "waived".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSYes, my Lords, I can. There are various reasons why these fixed penalties are not pursued. It may be a case of diplomatic immunity or it may be a case of an overseas visitor who just does not understand the regulations. The further information that I received from Scotland Yard rather charmingly said that in some cases, if the explanation received was that the parking was due to breakdown, illness or childbirth, they did not pursue it.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, can my noble friend say what proportion of the fines were not levied due to diplomatic immunity?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, it is a very small proportion indeed, but it was one of the reasons why the fines were waived, and I was trying to give a full answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, is not the noble Viscount aware that one of the difficulties is that the 2½p piece seems to have gone out of circulation and that it is difficult for people to find a 2½p piece for the meter? This is something that ought to be looked into.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I have always found that I could get some from my bank, and I have a little box full of them in my car.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, is my noble friend aware of the ingenuity of drivers of cars who leave them on double or single yellow lines? I would expect that in the Home Office and in the office of the Commissioner of Police there would be equal ingenuity in finding ways of convicting guilty parties. Is he aware that this matter really is urgent in order to keep free the main traffic arteries of London so that people may go about their business.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I do not think we are lacking in ingenuity, but where we become unstuck is that one has to prosecute within six months of the commission of the offence. The process of finding out who was driving the car very often takes more than six months, and the police are then 1242 powerless. It is precisely this consideration that is leading various people into thinking of the only liability suggested, which I know my noble friend favours.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, am I right in assuming that the principal way of avoiding the payment of these fixed penalties is by saying that you do not know who was driving the car? Am I right in thinking that a large proportion of these fines are unpaid because of lying, and that if it was the owner of the car who was liable to be prosecuted, it would not be worth lying?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I do not know that I have all the methods of guile at my fingertips, but I should not be surprised if my noble friend were right in some cases. He has put forward yet another argument for the solution which various people have already proposed.
§ LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKMy Lords, I am not quite clear what my noble friend said in his earlier reply. Do I understand that members of the Diplomatic Corps have complete immunity in this matter?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, as I understand it they cannot be prosecuted in the criminal courts of this country. As, in fact, a parking ticket is technically an offer by the police not to prosecute if the fixed penalty is paid, the sanction lying behind it is therefore a criminal prosecution and in the case of the Diplomatic Corps cannot be pursued.