Road Traffic Bill

HL Deb 09 May 1991 vol 528 cc1208-65

3.33 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 54 [Proposed action by London authorities likely to affect priority routes]:

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 105: Page 49, line 34, leave out from second ("affect") to end of line 39 and insert ("a priority route").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 105, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 106, 168 and 177.

These amendments concern the quick procedures available to the London authorities to notify the traffic director of their proposals for minor unforeseen road improvements on priority routes or roads which affect them, and similar procedures available to the authorities to notify the Secretary of State in connection with "designated" roads under the Local Government Act 1985.

On further consideration, the present drafting of Clause 54(1) appears to be wider than we had intended. Amendment No. 105 provides that local authorities should notify the traffic director of their proposals only if they affect priority routes, which is the main point. Amendments Nos. 106 and 168 both bring the procedures under Clause 54 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 of the 1985 Act more closely into line. Amendment No. 106 expands the scope of the instrument excluding powers from the application of the priority route notifications, and Amendment No. 168 recasts and simplifies the designated roads procedures in the 1985 Act. Amendment No. 177 is consequential upon Amendment No. 168. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendment. However, I do not think that it is appropriate that it should be taken on the nod. I understand the reasons for the amendment, but in relation to Amendment No. 106 there is a logical reason for making a distinction by sections of priority route. Some priority routes may be busier than others or more important than others. However, a distinction by borough does not seem to have any logic at all. Indeed, the situation could be invidious and even dangerous.

We could have a situation in which the Secretary of State might allow Westminster the ability to introduce pedestrian crossings on red routes but refuse to allow Kensington and Chelsea, the adjoining borough, to do the same. There would seem to be very little reason for making a distinction of that kind. I ask the Minister to explain that position.

If I may allude to Amendment No. 168, as the Minister said the amendment gives the Secretary of State's veto, which had previously been stated in the Bill, to the traffic director. However, it excludes the power of veto from roads which are not on the designated road network, where traffic may affect traffic on designated roads. That exclusion, which is in line with an earlier amendment to the Bill, is something to which we make no objection. However, it raises a more significant issue concerning the general hierarchy of roads in London.

We now have the following tiers of roads: trunk roads, primary routes, priority routes and designated roads. Surely it is right to say that those categories overlap in that some designated roads are also priority routes while others are not. Similarly, some designated roads—which are not the same as our priority routes—are primary routes and others are not. That can lead to great confusion and ought to be put right.

I submit—and I ask the Minister to comment on this point—that there is a strong case for abolishing all designated roads in this Bill on the basis that they will either be priority routes and therefore fall within that purview or should be just local roads. I ask the Minister to comment and to indicate whether he might consider bringing forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has drawn my attention to inconsistencies in two areas. Although he spoke very clearly, I have not quite followed what he said. Therefore I hope that he will be agreeable to my reading carefully what he said and either writing to him or discussing the matter at a later stage of the Bill.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I am perfectly happy for the Minister to write to me. Letters rain on us like confetti following these stages. They are sometimes quite difficult to follow too. Nonetheless I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that he will do that. However, perhaps the letter might be circulated to other Members of the Committee who are interested in this matter.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I did not for a moment question the noble Lord's clarity. Indeed, I made a point of saying that he was clear. I shall indeed circulate the letter to all interested parties.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 106: Page 50, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert ("as respects—

1. (a) all or any of the London authorities;
2. (b) all or any of the priority routes; or
3. (c) the exercise of the power in such manner or circumstances as may be specified in the instrument.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 [The Secretary of State's parking guidance]:

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 107: Page 52, line 14, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend who is unavoidably absent from the Committee, I beg to move Amendment No. 107. At the same time I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 108, 148 to 156 and 158.

I understand from my noble friend that she considers the procedure proposed in Clause 57 to be too cumbersome, too slow and often too divided on political issues between the London boroughs to work well. Her series of amendments seeks to provide a more practical and workable solution. She considers that local authorities should be empowered to set all parking charges and that they are in the best position to assess the relative demands for parking space and the need for deterrence within their own areas. I understand that she also considers that local authorities should continue to be empowered to act autonomously, setting all the parking charges which relate to the enforcement services that they provide. At the moment an authority can set both its ordinary on-street tariff—the initial charge —and the excess charge for the first period of overstaying at a parking meter. To that should be added the power to set the charges for the new penalty charge notice and for clamping and towing away.

The Government have stated that they believe that the level of penalty charge should be related to the level of penalty imposed by a police-issued ticket and that this should be dealt with in the Secretary of State's parking guidance. The Government have also stated that, because the penalty charge is related to the ordinary parking tariff, that guidance must also deal with that tariff in some way.

I understand that local authorities believe that, in central London, all parking charges need to be set so that they play their part in achieving the strategic objective of restraining unnecessary car journeys. Only the local authorities are in a position to judge what those charges should be and what area they should cover.

Penalty charges should be dependent on the level of initial charge, not the other way round as implied by the Government. There is no reason why the level of penalty imposed by the police should not also reflect differing levels of demand for parking from area to area. The charges should also reflect the enforcement costs. For example, high staffing and land costs will make towing away significantly more expensive in central London than elsewhere.

I understand that councils review their charges regularly. Although the Bill is unclear as to exactly how the Secretary of State's guidance will affect the ability of local authorities to set initial charges, it appears that the long-winded process by which charges are to be set will not allow councils to respond quickly to changes in demand. I beg to move.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Underhill

The Committee is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for taking on the task of proposing the amendments on behalf of his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes because it will enable us to take a careful look at the Minister's reply on matters which vitally affect local government.

As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, this is an important matter for local government. We must ask ourselves how the matter should be dealt with in local government. The clause allows the Secretary of State to produce parking guidance based on advice produced by the London Planning Advisory Committee. The amendment seeks to remove the LPAC's role. We believe that the parking advice should be produced in local government, as the noble Lord rightly said, since most of the proposals will directly affect local government. However, we argue that the logical body to produce that advice would be the joint committee for parking, the LPAC, as proposed in Clause 66. That would first lodge the preparation of advice on issues such as penalty charges with the same body that must later set them. That would simplify a complex process for establishing local government enforcement.

In addition, the joint committee has a role to play in the production of the advice, but the amendment would leave the preparation of the guidance on parking entirely to the Secretary of State with no advice from local government. We cannot therefore support the amendment. However, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that, as Amendment No. 108 extends consultation on parking guidance to the individual London boroughs, we are prepared to support it.

Amendments Nos. 148 to 156 and Amendment No. 158 seek to make the setting of penalty charges and the arrangement and operation of the adjudication system the responsibility of each borough individually rather than of the boroughs as a whole. We oppose that approach for a number of reasons. First, on efficiency grounds, it is unlikely that the call for an adjudication system will either be even throughout London or sufficient to require one adjudicator per borough, except perhaps for central London boroughs. It therefore makes great sense for the adjudication process to be handled jointly.

Secondly, there is a need to secure consistency across London for penalty charges. That is not to say that the charges will be the same across London, but it is necessary to avoid the position in which the penalty for parking against the regulations is three or four times the level on one side of the road than it is on the other, just because they are in different boroughs.

Thirdly, on a practical ground, there will have to be a degree of co-ordination between the boroughs; for example, on information about which vehicles have been towed away. As a surprising number of people already have difficulty working out which borough they live in, more will have problems knowing in which borough they parked their car. It will be highly unsatisfactory if a driver who found his car was missing had to contact both the police and three or four town halls to check which had towed the vehicle away.

I cannot therefore give the noble Lord too much satisfaction. We support Amendment No. 108, but are critical of the others and would like to think that the Government take the same view.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for having outlined the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. When we referred to the traffic director during our Second Reading debate, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes quite rightly said: a director of traffic should be able to take a strategic view of the overall London position and should be of enormous value".—[Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 458.] Just as it will be for the traffic director to work within the overall policy framework of the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance, so it will be for the London authorities to develop and co-ordinate their parking policies within the framework of the Secretary of State's guidance.

The guidance will be a recognition that coherent and properly focused parking policies can make a major contribution to improving traffic conditions. It will therefore be a strategic document and will need strong local authority input. Because parking is, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, of intense local interest, regard must be paid to the character and needs of local and adjacent areas. The local authorities have considerable knowledge and expertise in that respect.

Provision has therefore been made for early advice from the London Planning Advisory Committee. The LPAC was set up under the Local Government Act 1985 to represent the views of all the London authorities in preparing advice for the Government on planning and development matters, and it has gained valuable experience with the Government's strategic planning guidance for London.

It has independently commissioned a study of parking policies and standards off-street, and that should provide a useful base from which to develop its proposals for the substance of the Secretary of State's guidance. I am confident that it will be able to make a useful contribution towards the development of the guidance and represent the views of the London author. ties. Because of the strategic nature of the Secretary of State's guidance, he will find it more productive to consult the associations of the London author] ties, rather than individual authorities, before he issues or varies his guidance.

Traffic conditions in London will be affected by the levels of both parking charges and "additional parking charges" as defined by Clause 67(7). It will therefore be appropriate for the parking guidance to discuss both topics. The discussion about parking charges. will be about appropriate overall levels and will be in broad terms. It will not mean that the Secretary of State or LPAC will become involved in the detailed settlement of parking charges, nor that the role of the London authorities in this respect will be diminished. I hope that that will encourage my noble friend.

The discussion about additional parking charges will cover their relationship with the corresponding charges for contraventions for illegal parking controls. That discussion and the Secretary of State's approval of the charges will be necessary in order to ensure that drivers are not encouraged to breach one set of parking controls rather than another. Proposals for "additional parking charge" levels from the joint committee, provided for in Clause 66, rather than from individual authorities, will be necessary in order to avoid displacing traffic from one area to another and encouraging undesirable traffic growth. Regard to the whole of the Secretary of State's parking guidance —rather than a limited number of topics as proposed by the amendment—will be necessary if the opportunities offered by the new parking regimes and co-ordinated local authority parking policies and practices in London are not to be missed.

Although there are a number of steps in the proposed procedures, it is reasonable to expect that the Secretary of State's parking guidance could be issued within about six months of Royal Assent, and there would be nothing to prevent the London authorities establishing their joint committee before the guidance is issued. So there should be no delay in the introduction of the new "permitted" parking system in London. In conclusion, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is nothing to stop the joint committee making joint arrangements for parking adjudicators.

With that explanation I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Swinfen

I thank my noble friend for his response. I know that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parks will read with interest all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the Minister. On behalf of my noble friend, I shall withdraw the amendment but I know that she would like me to reserve her right to come back at a later stage with either the same or revised amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]

Clause 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 agreed to.

Clause 59 [Contravention of certain orders relating to parking places in London not to be criminal offence]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 109A: Page 53, line 7, at beginning insert: ("() In section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (provisions as to use of parking places provided under section 32 or 33) the words "but this section does not apply in relation to any parking place in Greater London" shall be added at the end of subsection (4).").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 109B, 110A to 110E inclusive, 126A, 126B, 133A to 133C inclusive, 134A, 134B, 168A and 168B. Before I speak to Amendment No. 109A, Members of the Committee who were here the other night may be amused when they cast their eyes over this amendment. They may remember that I asked the Minister whether there was such a place as Greater London as I slightly disputed its existence. When I look at the Marshalled List I find that I have used the same term in my own amendment. I thought that perhaps I should mention it before the Minister does.

This group of amendments seeks to extend the new local authority enforcement powers introduced in the Bill for on-street offences to offences in local authority car parks. At present boroughs can only deal with motorists out-staying their welcome at meters in residents' bays during the excess period. The boroughs do not have the power to wheel-clamp. Although they have the power to tow away vehicles, they cannot charge the motorist for the cost of doing so.

As currently drafted, the Bill gives local authorities a comprehensive range of new powers to deal with unauthorised parking on the streets. It gives them powers to issue penalty charge notices, which are similar to the fixed penalty notices issued by traffic wardens and therefore simple to collect, to wheel-clamp and to tow away and charge the costs of that towing away to the offender.

So far as concerns on-street parking, the Bill introduces a streamlined enforcement system which will allow boroughs to deal effectively with unauthorised parking. The local authorities are duly grateful for that. However, there seems no reason why those procedures should not be extended to local authority car parks off-street. The procedures in car parks are similar to those currently in force in on-street parking. The difficulty is that the boroughs have to take offenders to the magistrates' court for non-payment of fines. That is a cumbersome procedure which gives rise to great bureaucratic problems and clutters up the courts. The boroughs do not have clamping powers. Although they are allowed to tow away, they cannot charge for towing away vehicles from car parks.

These amendments seek to extend the new enforcement system to the car parks. Under the Bill's provisions the boroughs will need to set up quite a substantial system of operations for on-street parking. If a borough applies for special parking area status, under the terms outlined in the Government's Amendments Nos. 160 and 161, to which we shall come later, it will be the sole parking enforcement agency in the majority of its area. It would add greatly to the efficiency of the enforcement if there were a single simplified procedure applying equally to all its parking enforcement.

These amendments also seek to extend the new system of local authority enforcement to loading areas designated under Section 61 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984. That section allows local authorities to impose restrictions on land which is used for loading that does not form part of a highway. A practical example of that is private land behind a row of shops which is used for traders to receive deliveries, where illegal parking can be a positive nuisance to everyone.

This group of amendments is similar to the group which seeks to extend the simplified enforcement procedure to local authority car parks. The amendments merely seek to rationalise further the procedures which the boroughs will need in order to fulfil their responsibility for parking enforcement. We can see no reason for a distinction to be made between the procedures for off-street and on-street offences. This is an opportunity for the Government, in setting up the new enforcement procedures, to ensure that they apply across the board.

Perhaps I may give a brief example of the kind of problem which can occur. My friends in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames had a case in which a foreign car had been parked in one of their car parks on frequent occasions. They were unable to check the ownership of this car because it is not on the computer at Swansea. They were not allowed to wheel-clamp it and if towed away they could not charge the owner for the cost. That is a rather specific case but it indicates the kind of problems that could occur. With the new regulations, should that car be parked on-street it could be towed away and it could be clamped. If it were towed away the borough would have the power to charge the cost to the owner or the user when he came to reclaim his car.

There are genuine problems. It is not just an esoteric idea on our part. Quite practical problems are involved. When the Minister was good enough to indicate on an earlier amendment that the Government were willing to bring forward their own amendment at a later stage, I had the impression that so far as concerns these amendments they might be less sympathetic. I hope that what I have said has helped to change their mind or at least to think again about this matter. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has presented a good argument for the amendment, in particular for simplifying and co-ordinating the parking responsibilities that are now placed on local authorities. That seems very important. The noble Lord did not refer to the amendments in this group regarding loading and unloading areas.

Lord Tordoff

Yes, I did.

Lord Underhill

I must have been dreaming or considering what I would say. The amendments referring to loading and unloading areas are important. We hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the general principles of those amendments put forward by the noble Lord.

4 p.m.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for introducing this group of amendments and for the illustration concerning the foreign car, which I understand. In Part II of the Bill we seek to improve traffic conditions in London and relieve congestion. We have already discussed clauses relating to the introduction of a network of priority routes, a major new traffic management initiative, and now we are to consider in detail the provisions for new and strengthened systems of on-street parking to be administered and enforced by the London authorities. Both traffic management and parking controls have a direct bearing on traffic conditions, and the new initiatives will help the movement of traffic on London's main roads and tackle the substantial and urgent problems relating to on-street parking control enforcement.

The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, aim to decriminalise offences at off-street parking places—that is, local authority car parks—and loading areas in London, and to apply the penalty charge, wheelclamping and associated provisions of the Bill to those offences. I appreciate the noble Lord's motives in proposing the amendments. However, such amendment would be unlikely to have any direct impact on traffic conditions, which is where the main thrust of our proposals lies. More importantly, the Government are not aware that the present arrangements for enforcement of local authority off-street parking places, through the normal charging mechanisms, are unsatisfactory. No evidence to that effect has been submitted. Any changes would need careful and detailed consideration and consultation with interested parties. We submit that the case for such changes is neither proven nor urgent.

I can assure the noble Lord that the department maintains regular contact with the local authority associations on traffic and parking matters. No pressure has come from that quarter to decriminalise off-street parking offences. But it would be open to discuss the matter in due course in the light of experience gained from the new on-street enforcement regime. Amendments that we shall be debating later today—to which reference has been made—will, if agreed, enable the Secretary of State, by order, to add further stationary vehicle offences to those which will in future be decriminalised and enforced by the local authorities in special parking areas. So there will be opportunity to consider the matters raised by the noble Lord, and, if appropriate, to act upon them at a later date.

I hope that in view of those remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Tordoff

I do not intend to press the amendments. However, I am surprised that the noble Lord says, first, that there is no evidence—I thought that I had given a little evidence—and, secondly, that there has been no pressure from local authorities. I am advised on the matter by the London Boroughs Association. It is not something that stemmed entirely from my fertile mind.

Perhaps I may press the Minister. Is it possible that between now and a later stage of the Bill the Government will reconsider their position? It seems a logical extension of what the Government seek to do by decriminalising the position of on-street parking. It is clearly a good opportunity to put the issue straight on local government parking across the board. Will the Minister consider an approach from the London Boroughs Association between now and the next stage to discuss what can be done? I know that it may cause difficulty in the department; amendments of some complexity may have to be produced. I am sure that as usual my amendment will not be entirely adequate. However, I hope that the Minister and his department can give us some hope of further consideration before the Bill leaves this Chamber.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

It is true that the noble Lord gave an illustration which was interesting. I was minded to satisfy myself how that position might work. I reiterate that we have not been approached. That is rather surprising in the light of the noble Lord's remarks. We are not hostile to the principle of the amendment. Without any commitment, I shall be pleased to consider it again.

Lord Tordoff

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendmen t.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 109B not moved.]

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 110: Page 53, line 9, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. Clause 58 seeks to decriminalise offences at designated parking places in London, for example, meter bays and residents' bays, so that the controls at these places can be enforced by parking attendants appointed by the London authorities. It seeks to do this by amending Section 47(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, which makes contraventions of those controls a criminal offence. The amendment adds the words, but this section does not apply in relation to any designated parking place in greater London at the end of Section 47(1). The reference should, however, be to "this subsection". It is not intended to disapply the whole of Section 47 in London. That would, for example, disapply the important offence in Section 47(3) which covers interference with, or operation of, a parking meter with intent to defraud. The amendment to Clause 59 puts that right. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 60 [Parking penalties in London]:

[Amendments Nos. 110A to 110E not moved.]

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 111: Page 53, line 39, at end insert: ("() Notwithstanding subparagraph (2) (a) (ii) and paragraph (2) (b) above, no penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle, if a current disabled persons's badge is displayed on the vehicle and the vehicle at the time at which it was parked was being used or was to be used by the person to whom that disabled person's badge was issued.").

The noble Lord said: At present the orange badge for disabled drivers is not recognised in the cities of London and Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and that part of the London Borough of Camden that lies south of the Euston Road. The amendment grants a partial recognition of the orange badge in those areas by allowing parking without time limit in meter bays. It would not permit parking on yellow lines.

Originally, five inner London boroughs were excluded from the orange badge parking scheme introduced by virtue of Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Since then the whole of the London Borough of Islington has been covered in addition to a part of the London Borough of Camden.

The orange badge scheme is now recognised throughout Great Britain with the exception of those inner London areas to which I have referred which operate their own schemes for disabled people living in their areas or having a permanent place of employment there. The schemes allow badge holders to park at meter bays without charge or time limit. Disabled people in one area cannot use their badges in another.

The cities of London and Westminster and the borough of Camden set aside a few on-street parking places for the general use of orange badge holders. Those are most welcome but further help is needed by people who are unable to walk. Disabled people who need to travel around London or into London on business enjoy no parking concessions whatever. Nor do disabled people living outside the area who wish to visit for shopping or recreation.

The proposed amendment provides such help while not imposing on the inner London boroughs a requirement to allow parking on yellow lines even though that concession is enjoyed by badge holders elsewhere in Great Britain. I beg to move.

The Viscount of Falkland

I support what the noble Lord said and the amendment. It may interest Members of the Committee to know that at present in the guest room is the noble Lady, Lady Sempill, and her husband. Her husband has recently had a series of operations and is now in a wheelchair because he has become severely disabled. As a resident of Kensington and Chelsea, he has had to lay up his car in Scotland. He is unable to have a car in London because of the attitude of the borough of Kensington and Chelsea to badge holders. It is monstrous that in this country the blind, the deaf and the disabled should have to fight every inch of the way to obtain from bureaucracy—local government or whatever—facilities that are available in other European countries.

I strongly support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is no excuse for boroughs to say that too many people are using the orange badge scheme. That is an impertinent reaction and they must find a way around the difficulties. Surely they can reduce the number of people who are abusing the scheme. The important point is that disabled people should be allowed to use vehicles wherever possible. The proposed scheme is excellent and it is not good enough that one or two boroughs can escape by saying that a few miscreants will abuse it.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I too support the amendment and agree with what has been said. On Tuesday the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, gave a graphic account of the problems of people who do not live in Westminster and Chelsea. I must point out that the orange badge scheme is recognised not only by the rest of Britain but throughout the European Community. I welcome the fact that the cities of London and Westminster and the borough of Camden have set aside a few on-street parking places but that goes no way towards solving the problem.

On 5th February in Committee in another place Mr. Chope said that whether the central London boroughs would accept the orange badge scheme in full depended very much on whether they are satisfied that some limitation has been placed on the abuse of the scheme. That point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The most effective way of limiting the abuse would be to implement the changes incorporated in the draft regulations of April 1990. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was deeply involved with those regulations. It is crucial that we should act now because the change is overdue.

A further problem arises because some towns have started to issue their own badges. My neighbourhood town has issued its own blue badge and "bizarre" is a good description of the criterion used. If one has difficulty in walking 50 yards one is eligible for a badge. However, the reply to my application stated that because I am unable to walk I am not eligible for the badge. That is a strange criterion. It leads to further diminution in the value of the badge and to an increase in the public's perception of the abuse of the badge. This is an important amendment.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I wish to speak in the defence of the London boroughs whose handling of the matter has been severely criticised this afternoon. I declare an interest because a member of my family has a badge issued by the Kensington and Chelsea borough. It was issued promptly and honourably and has proved most useful for the person concerned. It is unfair to criticise the London boroughs for concentrating first on providing facilities for the disabled people who are resident in their boroughs. That is where their first obligation lies. People resident in the boroughs are regularly in need of parking facilities there and to a greater extent than people who reside outside and travel in from time to time.

I do not know whether adoption of the amendment would result in denying to the inner London boroughs the right to issue their badges to their residents. If that is the case I hope that it will be resisted. On the other hand, if it is contemplated that the inner London boroughs should not only issue their own badges but must recognise those issued under the orange badge scheme one may ask how any control on the number of badges issued can be operated. Valuable as such badges are to disabled people, it is obvious that if two separate sources are issuing badges in a particular borough there is a risk of excessive issue. That could prove to be frustrating because there would be more badges than available suitable parking spaces—

Lord Clinton-Davis

How does the noble Lord reconcile the attitude of these boroughs and part of the London Borough of Camden with the position elsewhere in London where it is found perfectly possible to operate the orange badge scheme?

4.15 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

It is not for me to reconcile that in the sense of justifying the attitude of the other boroughs. To some degree I am speaking in defence of the attitude of these boroughs. A possible explanation is that they are in the centre of London where the demand for parking spaces is greatest. I was suggesting to the Committee that there would be a strong case for allowing them to protect their own residents. If that is right, there must be a limitation on the use of parking spaces by people holding the ordinary orange badges.

It may be that a limitation on the numbers can be inserted into the amendment. The last thing that I wish to be is dogmatic but I do not want the discussion to be held on the basis that the inner-London boroughs concerned have done anything wrong, selfish or unthoughtful in maintaining the system that they operate. They do so in good faith in support of the people whom they represent. The need of their residents must be greater than that of people whose homes and needs are in other boroughs. If the two systems can be reconciled everyone will be happy, but the issue is not as simple and clear cut as has been suggested.

Lord Campbell of Croy

I declare an interest because I have been a disabled driver for 43 years. I held a licence in 1939 but was wounded and disabled during the war. Afterwards, and when I was able to do so, I had.to take another driving test using a hand clutch. When I was a Member of another place I was one of the sponsors of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That was enacted just before the 1970 election after which I became Secretary of State with responsibility for putting that into force. One section of the Act introduced the orange badge scheme.

During the past eight years I have initiated at least two debates in this House on the orange badge scheme and disabled parking. As yet the scheme has not been accepted in a certain part of central London. I have supported the reasons for that in the debates that I have initiated.

I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. Within a 30-mile catchment area of a central point in London one can imagine the tens of thousands of people who are rightly entitled to orange badges who may come into the city. Because of the motorways, they can do that within a very short space of time. They may wish to do their shopping at Christmas time, to visit the theatre and so on. They could take up every available parking place and meter. That has been the main reason for the central boroughs introducing their own schemes. For example, in Westminster, where I have a white card, the test is that one must 85 per cent. or more disabled; whereas the orange badge scheme requires a level of 60 per cent.

Most of us concerned with this subject have been waiting for some time for the improved parking scheme which the Government have been involved in negotiating with all the organisations concerned. We have seen a draft of what is proposed. It would tighten up the scheme from the point of view of making it more difficult for the scheme to be abused. For example it is proposed that not only the name but also the photograph of the disabled person should be on the badge. For years I have said that the holder for the orange badge should be one from which the badge can be taken in and out and that the badge should not be stuck to the screen. The fixture of the badge causes people to continue to use the car with the badge on while the disabled person is no longer in it and, therefore, offend when it comes to parking.

As I understand it, this amendment would make it possible for the orange badge to be used all over London. Therefore, at present that would not be consistent with the special additional schemes in Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and so on. Therefore, it seems to me that this proposal is premature, given that we hope the Government will bring out a new scheme.

As part of the new scheme we understand that there will be a change in the situation in the central London boroughs. We understand and have grounds for hoping that they are changing their views in return for the scheme being improved and tightened. When that happens, I hope that my noble friend's amendment will be appropriate. At present, I cannot see that it is consistent with the special parking arrangements in central London.

Behind the scenes as well as publicly I have been urging the Government to try to make progress with the new scheme because in central London everything depends on that. The effect of the amendment would appear to depend on the progress of that proposed new scheme. When the Minister replies I hope that he will be able to tell us whether we are close to reaching an agreement and publication of the scheme.

Lord Glenarthur

I am a beginner on this subject. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, struck a chord with me. However, I take a point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there are local difficulties in London which may mitigate against the proposal in the amendment.

I do not know to what extent in other parts of Great Britain —for instance, large conurbations like Manchester or Birmingham—such differences apply. Circumstances may well be different. However, to have a whole range of orange badges issued in the way which his been described cannot be helpful to those who may try to park their cars. That applies not only to those who live within the boroughs, which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter described, but also, for example, to those who may wish to go from one part of Manchester to another and then perhaps come to London. That makes life difficult.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy makes the point that the Government are making progress towards an agreement. That is important. I hope that my noble friend will give some reassurance on that point.

The Viscount of Falkland

It seems that boroughs believe that to widen the use of the badge scheme would leave the way open to abuse, whether or not widespread I do not know. Perhaps the Minister can indicate how many prosecutions are recorded for abuse and what would be the penalties for a person who took a badge and used it when he was not disabled, thereby further aggravating the position as regards the genuinely disabled, person.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I do not believe that either my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy or I suggested that there is abuse. We were concerned with the practical question as to whether the system would be feasible and whether there would be room to provide adequate spaces in areas which, first, have a good many disabled people living in them and, secondly, attract disabled people from the outer perimeter. No suggestion of abuse was made by either of us.

The Viscount of Falkland

I did not wish to imply that the noble Lord had suggested that. I believe that the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has gone on record as saying that it fears widespread abuse. I am concerned about that. That is why I asked the Minister whether he can give any evidence of widespread abuse, the number of convictions and the kind of penalty given to people who abuse the system.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Once again we have had an interesting debate on this subject. First, I should explain to Members of the Committee that relief to orange badge holders from parking regulations comes from the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England and Wales) Regulations 1986. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned Scotland, but this Bill deals only with London. Where the regulations apply, orange badge holders may park free of charge and without time limit at parking meters. Those arrangements will continue to apply automatically when the new decriminalised system of permitted parking is introduced under the Road Traffic Bill. Orange badge holders will not face penalty charges in connection with this type of parking in areas covered by the orange badge scheme. That means that this Bill makes no change to existing orange badge arrangements.

As my noble friend said, I accept that the regulations do not currently apply in all areas of London. The cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the area of Camden south of and including the Euston Road are exempt from the scheme. As my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Boyd-Carpenter have said, that is because they have particularly severe problems with traffic congestion and pressure on parking space. That was recognised when the schemes were first put in place. However, each authority operates its own independent concessionary scheme for people with disabilities who live or work in its area. Having heard the example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I am surprised that that person was not able to obtain a badge. I hope that that matter may be looked into.

It is widely recognised that the current orange badge scheme is abused and has become somewhat discredited. I should tell the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that at present there have been very few prosecutions for fraudulent use of orange badges but I am sure that we have all seen examples of their misuse. We shall deal with that in a later amendment.

As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, we are taking steps to remedy this and the package of changes which we are now considering is intended to ensure that only people who have a legitimate right to an orange badge are able to take advantage of the parking concessions it affords. I cannot give to my noble friend or the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who asked the same question, a timetable for that but I hope that it will not be too long before we reach a conclusion. We are still consulting with the interested parties. However, I can say that most of the changes proposed would not require new primary legislation.

As part of the plan we have opened discussions with the four central London boroughs on what range of concessions might be available in their areas to orange badge holders. They have agreed to consider the possibility of granting some concessions to badge holders subject to the implementation of the modified scheme and to changes in parking enforcement responsibilities and powers as provided for in the Bill. I am confident that we shall see improvements in parking provision arrangements for disabled people in the central area before too long.

I believe it is right that those improvements should be made with the authorities' agreement and co-operation. It would not be appropriate to bypass those discussions or practical to impose the orange badge scheme on the four authorities as the amendment effectively seeks to do. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I would add that I referred earlier to the regulations under which the scheme operates. Were a satisfactory conclusion to be reached with the boroughs it would not be necessary for new primary legislation to be introduced to make the change; it could be introduced under the regulations. To that extent, if my noble friend withdraws the amendment he will not be missing the opportunity afforded by the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I did not intervene earlier as I wanted to hear what the Minister had to say. I want to advance another possible way out of the difficulty. I was not sure whether the Minister would anticipate that.

The Committee is indebted to the Minister for describing the consultations that are taking place. I understand that the Minister is not able to offer a clear timescale for their conclusion. Perhaps he could do that in relation to the consideration by the four London boroughs. That would be helpful.

Clearly a problem exists and it is not one that I addressed sufficiently before I added my name to the amendment. I am advised that there is substantial abuse of the system and I underestimated the measure of the abuse. However, we are speaking here not about clamping or towing away but of penalties, and, it follows from that, the way in which the penalties are to be collected by the boroughs and the loss of revenue that results. Perhaps one could overcome part of the problem by enabling a disabled person who had received a notice of penalty—either by its being attached to the windscreen or subsequently—to have a defence if he can establish that the vehicle was being used by him. I do not say that he should establish that beyond all reasonable doubt but simply that he should assert that the vehicle was being used by him. That would put the person to a degree of inconvenience through having to write and it may be a way that the Minister could consider of not necessarily avoiding the abuse but perhaps mitigating it.

I do not ask the Minister for a response now, nor indeed the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is not an easy matter. The disabled person could be compounding the problem by enabling another person to use the vehicle. It would be easy for him or her to write to the local authority or to the police and say that they were using it at the time. However, it would be another difficulty placed in the way.

The problem arises in trying to achieve a balance. A balance must be found between the great inconvenience to the genuinely disabled person who finds that a penalty has been imposed but was in a position where he had no alternative but to break the law and the rights and concerns of local authorities about the abuse continuing. It is a difficult issue. I put forward that idea, almost plucking it out of the air. The Minister may feel it is something that could be worked on. I do not say that I have come forward with a perfect solution; far from it. It is something that may be regarded as a positive way of addressing the problem.

Lord Campbell of Croy

The noble Lord has done the Committee a service by putting forward that suggestion. I make an immediate comment on it which is nothing to do with abuse. Most genuinely disabled drivers want to do what they know they are entitled to do. They do not want to go beyond that; they do not want to park on a double yellow line or commit any other offence of that kind. We need to ensure in any changes that we make clear what they are entitled to do and what they are not entitled to do.

Cases come to my notice where severely disabled persons may be due to attend an appointment or an office; they drive round and round and find that there is absolutely no parking facility. They therefore park somewhere which is not appropriate. My experience is that under the present system, if a ticket is issued and the disabled person writes to explain the position, he is usually very well heard and receives the benefit of the doubt. He can prove who he is and where he was going.

That brings me to my last point in this regard. Disabled drivers do not want to be involved in a system where they must write every time they are given a ticket. That is a disadvantage of the suggestion of the noble Lord. Correspondence can go on and on. Most people want to know where they are and what they can do without resorting to such a procedure. At present when they resort to correspondence, they usually receive a very good reception.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment I shall respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We would like to think about the idea put forward and consider whether it is something that could be included in the overall consideration I mentioned earlier. However, having been pressed to come to a speedy conclusion perhaps we should try to do that. It will be difficult but we shall see what the noble Lord said. He asked also whether we could go forward with the four London boroughs before our overall review of the scheme came to fruition. That would not be possible.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I was merely asking the Minister the timescale for consideration by the four London boroughs.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I must give the noble Lord the same answer I gave earlier. We could not ask the four London boroughs to change their minds until we have actually come to a conclusion on our review of the scheme.

Lord Swinfen

We have had an interesting and useful debate on this subject which gives a lot of food for thought. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), were worried about abuse of the orange badge scheme. Amendment No. 115 is an attempt to deal with abuse in some respects and I am sure it will receive their support.

My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that the amendment was unfair to some of the central London boroughs. It is not intended to be unfair to them. I am sure that they in their turn do not intend to be unfair to disabled people. However, if one is an able bodied driver from outside central London one is in the same position with regard to finding a parking space when coming into the area as a person who knows it well.

If the holder of an orange badge, comes into central London possibly once a year and applies the normal rules that would apply to another town or city in the British Isles or, as the noble Baroness said, on the continent of Europe, he finds that he has committed a misdemeanour and finishes up with a penalty when he thought that he was within his rights and behaving in a legal fashion. That is a disadvantage of the scheme. I agree that there must be adequate parking in central London boroughs for those who live and work in them. That is a different question. We may have to do something about providing other parking spaces, difficult though that may be.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said that we should tighten up the orange badge scheme. I entirely agree. My personal assistant is disabled and has an orange badge. She would very much welcome the scheme being considerably tightened up even though it would probably mean that she was no longer eligible for such a badge. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke of establishing that a disabled person was using the vehicle at the time. That could be difficult under the present scheme. One noble Lord mentioned a photograph being put on the new badge. Everyone would like that provision. It would be quite easy for parking attendants and the police to see whether the vehicle was being mis-parked at the time. One must bear in mind that it is not just the drivers who are entitled to the orange badge. Very often a disabled person is physically incapable of driving and has to be driven by a member of the family. Therefore the badge can be on the car and left there. There are licence holders available in which a licence can be slipped in and out. They cost a very small amount of money. I purchased one the other day for my wife to use with her pass into Canterbury cathedral. She can put the licence in when she is on duty and remove it at other times so that no other member of the family can misuse it.

I do not intend to press this amendment this evening. I shall read very carefully what everyone has said. I may well come back to this matter at a later stage because it is an important issue and one that needs attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 112: Page 54, line 3, leave out ("25 per cent.") and insert ("the specified proportion").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendment No. 113. Clause 60 presently provides for a discount of 25 per cent. for prompt payment of the penalty charge. We now believe that is unduly restrictive. Accordingly these amendments provide instead for the level of discount for early payment of the penalty charge to be determined by the London local authorities acting through the joint committee. A single uniform discount will apply at the level agreed jointly by the authorities. But the authorities will be able to increase the discount if, for example, in the light of experience that offers a greater incentive to early payment.

The Secretary of State's principal interest will be to ensure comparability between the full penalty for prohibited parking offences so that the two do not get out of step. There might otherwise be a danger that motorists would be influenced by differential penalty rates. The Secretary of State will do that through his parking guidance in Clause 57 and the procedures for approving additional parking charges in Clause 67. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 113: Page 54, line 8, at end insert: ("(3A) In subsection (3) (d) above "specified proportion" means such proportion, applicable to all cases, as may be determined by the London authorities acting through the Joint Committee.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 114: After Clause 60, insert the following new clause: (".—(1) Notwithstanding the general powers to remove a vehicle in pursuance of an order to which section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 applies, or of regulations under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1988 apply, those powers shall not extend to permit a vehicle displaying a current disabled person's badge to be removed unless—

1. (a)the vehicle was on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to cause obstruction to other persons using the road or as to be likely to cause danger to such persons, or
2. (b)at the time the vehicle was being parked the vehicle was not being used or was not to be used by the disabled person to whom that badge was issued.

(2)In the case of the removal of a vehicle under subsection (1) (a) above, the removal shall be in accordance with provisions set down by the Secretary of State in a Code of Practice.

(3)Matters covered by the provisions in the Code of Practice shall include—

1. (a)the general responsibilities of the disabled badge holder and the competent authority;
2. (b)notifying a disabled badge holder of the proposal to remove a vehicle;
3. (c)where a removed vehicle is to be placed; and
4. (d)notifying a disabled badge holder where a removed vehicle may be found.").

The noble Lord said: Because of the very grave difficulties which an orange badge holder would face, a vehicle displaying a disabled person's badge may not be wheel clamped. However, it can be removed. That presents just as great a problem to the disabled person. The amendment is designed to help protect the disabled person from the worst dangers but would still allow a vehicle to be removed if it constituted an obstruction or a hazard. When wheel-clamping was introduced in London it was recognised at the time that disabled people who were unable, or virtually unable, to walk and others with severe walking difficulties, would be far more adversely affected by wheel-clamping than able-bodied motorists. Some disabled people would be physically unable to get from their vehicle to the police station to pay for the vehicle's release. Others, such as those with weak hearts, poor circulation or breathing difficulties, could be at great risk in making such a journey.

Section 105 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 therefore expressly exempted from wheel-clamping all vehicles duly displaying orange badges. The same argument of difficulty and risk applies to the towing away and impounding of vehicles. However, towing away applies to a vehicle causing an obstruction or constituting a hazard to other road users whereas wheel-clamping does not. That makes it impossible to secure a blanket exemption for orange badge holders in respect of towing away and impounding. My amendment seeks to secure some protection for orange badge holders by permitting the impounding of vehicles duly displaying orange badges only if the vehicle constitutes a hazard or obstruction.

It also proposes that the towing away or impounding of any such vehicle is undertaken in a manner which is in accord with principles set down in a short code of practice. Some of the principles are indicated in the amendment. They are designed to help protect disabled people. It is anomalous that a vehicle displaying an orange badge may not be wheel-clamped. The disabled person can sit in the vehicle while a friend goes for help. In adverse weather what does a disabled person do if his vehicle has been removed? In some respects that is a much more difficult problem. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said. There seems to be a disparity of treatment between wheel-clamping and towing away at the present time. That is a matter which should be addressed in this Bill. The way in which the matter has been posed by the noble Lord is eminently sensible and very easy to apply. The Minister will no doubt give some reasons as to why there is a disparity of treatment. The onus is on him to do that. The noble Lord said that somebody whose car has been wheel-clamped can sit inside the vehicle and rely on a friend. A friend is not always available. Presumably that is why the provision was made in the Act.

The noble Lord has a very strong point concerning the enormous inconvenience that ensues if a vehicle is towed away. In such circumstances, it is quite difficult to get to the pound even if the disabled person can use public transport, and that is not always the case. To be able to get to the place conveniently by public transport is, in my experience, far from easy. For the ordinary person it is part of the deterrent and part of the penalty that one should be exposed to the burden of having to find a place at the back of beyond where the car has been placed. That is reasonable enough. However, as the noble Lord said, when it comes to a disabled person, who is physically unable to get to the police pound and pay for the release of the vehicle, it is a totally different state of affairs.

The matter is one of considerable urgency. I hope that the Minister will be able to announce today, without having to wait until the end of the consultation period, that action can be taken under the regulations to which he referred and that, moreover, this is what the Government propose to do. That is the undertaking which I believe Members of the Committee wish to hear from the Minister.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I should like to add a few words in support of the amendment. The case has been put very strongly both by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. As the latter said, the hassle involved for everyone in getting a. vehicle out of the pound is the same, but for the disabled person it involves extra time, energy and also expense. I say that because such a person is on his own and has to find an accessible taxi or hire car because he cannot use public transport. I fully accept the need to be able to shift vehicles which are causing an obstruction or hazard. If the amendment is accepted, I very much hope that the disability organisations will be consulted about the drafting of the code of practice.

Viscount Mountgarret

I must first apologise for my late arrival. It seems to me that this amendment is very much in line with Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 which are tabled in my name. They are very similar. With the leave of the Committee, it may be a good idea to dispose of the point at this stage. In my view, it is entirely fair that such facilities for parking should exist and that disabled people should not be subject to the provisions of the clause. I add my voice to the support expressed for the amendment.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I well understand why this amendment has been tabled. However, with respect to Members of the Committee, I am not convinced that it is appropriate. As has been said—and I feel that I should reiterate this—it is against the law to wheel-clamp vehicles displaying an orange badge in places where wheel-clamping is authorised by the Secretary of State. There are no proposals in the Bill or anywhere else to change the position. Wheel-clamping will not take place.

So far as concerns the removal of vehicles, matters are a little less straightforward. I can however assure Members of the Committee that the police and traffic wardens are already sensitive to the needs of disabled people. The general policy of police forces is not to remove vehicles displaying an orange badge unless they are causing a severe obstruction or danger. Metropolitan Police district instructions highlight that provision. In such circumstances, vehicles will normally be removed to a better position—just around the corner, it is to be hoped—and not to a car pound, so as to avoid hardship to the disabled driver.

I must point out that the code of practice proposed in the amendment also gives rise to some difficulty. I believe that it would complicate the orange badge scheme and raise severe practical difficulties. For example, how could an orange badge holder be notified of the impending removal? The warden is unlikely to know the whereabouts of the orange badge holder. Further, how could the orange badge holder be informed of the place to which the vehicle has been taken?

However, I believe that it is important for the police to have the flexibility to take special considerations into account when dealing with the removal of vehicles. While they will not normally remove vehicles except in cases of danger or obstruction, they must, for example, retain powers to remove vehicles if there are security considerations as regards a terrorist threat or a Royal procession.

Therefore, I cannot accept an amendment which, by attempting to define the circumstances in which removal may take place, could hamper the operations of the police. In those circumstances, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept my undertakings and assurances about police practice and will also accept the need for police operational flexibility in exceptional circumstances. I give my noble friend the assurance that nothing in the Bill will affect police practice in the matter. That will continue.

Lord Clinton-Davis

With respect, I do not find the Minister's reply at all reassuring. He says that the matter is less straightforward than is the case with wheel-clamping. However, he does not indicate why. He raises various arguments about serious situations, such as terrorism, which may cause the police to seek to remove a vehicle but then says that it is impossible for him at this stage to go further. I am not sure whether he is saying that it is virtually impossible to define in legislation those serious situations which may arise and which may make such action necessary. I do not accept that view. I believe that legislation can define the sort of situations to which he alluded. In the meantime, a very serious state of affairs continues to exist. I do not need to elaborate on the arguments eloquently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The Minister has overlooked the qualifications which have been imported into the proposed new clause so far as concerns subsections (1) (a) and (b).

As regards a code of practice, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The code is put forward here in principle. I do not agree that it will confuse the situation about the orange badge scheme. The matter can be elaborated upon and reconsidered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will agree. Indeed, this is not necessarily the final draft. Those who draft such amendments do not have the great advantages that Ministers have when it comes to drafting. Therefore, one has to be reasonably flexible about approaching amendments and new clauses. What we are trying to put forward is a principle. In my view there is a case for a code of practice, but I take the point made by the noble Baroness that the details and principles of it are matters which can be further considered by the Government and by the organisations that support this proposed change in the law.

I am disappointed that the Minister was unable to go further. However, it is to some degree reassuring to know that in removing vehicles the police may—and probably do under most circumstances—engage in the sort of conduct which enables the vehicles to be removed to a reasonably convenient place nearby. However, that is by no means always possible. Moreover, it is by no means certain that that does happen in all cases. Even if it is only in the minority of cases that vehicles are removed to the police pound. people are put to the most serious inconvenience.

In the circumstances, I urge the Minister to reflect further on what has been said rather than to say that he rejects the idea totally. We can then return to the matter on Report. There will be sufficient time for the matter to be considered between now and the Report stage which, I believe, will take place some time next month. That is the course I encourage the Minister to take. However, it is for him to decide what he proposes to do.

5 p.m.

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

Before the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, decides what to do, may I ask the Minister a little more about police practice? Does the practice vary from area to area?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Not so far as I understand it. We are talking about police guidelines. Those guidelines will continue, so far as the police are concerned, where these new provisions apply, where towing away and clamping are in practice. They will also apply to the local authority areas concerned.

Lord Swinfen

Will my noble friend be kind enough to send to me a copy of the police guidelines, and also send a copy to other Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate? Perhaps he can give me that undertaking so that I can decide what to do on this matter.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Certainly, I will send my noble friend a copy and will put a copy in the Library for other noble Lords.

Lord Swinfen

I thank my noble friend. We have had an interesting and useful discussion on this subject. I should like to read the report of what has been said so that I can consider just how to deal with the matter at the next stage of the Bill. In Committee last Tuesday my noble friend undertook to meet me between now and Report stage. Perhaps at the same time we could discuss this matter. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 115: After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:

("Misuse of disabled person's badge

.—(1) A person who displays a disabled person's badge on a vehicle shall be guilty of an offence if at the time the badge was being displayed—

1. (a) the vehicle was not being used by the person to whom that disabled person's badge had been issued, or
2. (b) the vehicle was not being parked for the purpose of enabling it to be used by the person to whom that disabled person's badge had been issued.

(2) Any person convicted of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".

The noble Lord said: I referred to this amendment earlier. For some considerable time, disabled people have wanted the orange badge scheme to be firmly enforced to stop abuse. It is fair to say that pressure for firmly enforcing the scheme has come far more from disabled people than from people who are not disabled, who very often do not realise that the scheme is being abused. Disabled badge holders are anxious that the scheme does not get further into disrepute.

Leaving aside the careless issuing by local authorities, which sometimes happens, one form of abuse has been that disabled people's badges have been used by non-disabled people. At present such misuse is an offence only when a non-disabled person fraudulently uses the concessions available to badge holders; for example, parking on yellow lines or overstaying at a meter. Determining that such an offence has occurred takes up too much time. Generally, a potential offender would need to have his or her vehicle under surveillance from the time of parking until returning. On a meter bay that could be for over an hour, which I think the Committee will agree would be a waste of police time.

To aid the authorities in enforcing the scheme, disabled people have therefore sought a small change in the law which my amendment seeks to meet. They ask not for the mere displaying of a badge to be made an offence, but for it to be an offence when the badge is being used by someone who is not a badge holder.

Last January, my noble friend Lord Brabazon wrote to me stating: We have decided in principle that it would also be helpful to introduce a new offence of displaying an orange badge when the legitimate holder is not with the vehicle. It may be some time before a suitable legislative opportunity for change occurs". I put it to my noble friend and to the Committee that that time has now arrived and that this Bill is the ideal vehicle for this change. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Again, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on this matter. I believe that in advising the Committee as to the present state of the law the noble Lord has stated the position correctly. Because the prosecution has to establish fraud on the part of the non-disabled person—a very difficult burden indeed—and having regard to the nature of the fraud, the police or the prosecuting authority are likely in such circumstances to ignore the matter. Consequently, the abuse is not at all deterred. There lies the mischief at present. To be able to simplify the matter in the way that the noble Lord has suggested seems to me to be of considerable benefit.

I shall listen with interest to the arguments that the noble Lord the Minister might adduce against the amendment. I am ever hopeful that the Minister will not adduce such arguments and will say that he warmly welcomes the proposal, but I think that I shall be disappointed in that regard. Nevertheless, I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

I, too, support this amendment. The noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Clinton-Davis, have already said how useful it would be as a step towards stopping the abuse. It would also be a very useful step towards stopping the perception of abuse. I am thinking of the able-bodied person who may have left his disabled relative's orange badge on the windscreen and dashes into a shop. He is parking legally on dotted lines and is not misusing the badge—he is not even using the badge consciously—but it is perceived by the public as yet another case of abuse.

In Committee in the other place on 7th February, the Minister, Mr. Chope, said (at col. 423 of Hansard) that he had considerable sympathy with this amendment but that in view of the new passport style badge that the Government intend to introduce—we hope as soon as possible: I am by no means sure that the offence of displaying an orange badge when the badge holder is not using the vehicle will be needed in such circumstances". As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already said, it is disabled people who view this amendment as necessary. RADAR has consulted the Home Office and the Department of Transport who say that there is no objection to such a change in the law. The joint committee on mobility of disabled people is totally in favour of it, and the Spinal Injuries Association says that it believes that the new passport style badge must be supported by making it an offence wrongfully to display the badge. I hope that the Minister, who is a sensible listening Minister who has shown that he has a good understanding of the problems of disabled motorists, will take account of what disability organisations firmly believe and that he will give an encouraging response to this amendment.

Earl Nelson

I rise to support the amendment. If the Government do not agree and there is a Division in the Committee I shall certainly support the amendment. The fact of the matter is that there is so much abuse of the current orange badge that disabled people themselves are getting a little embarrassed about the whole matter. To use an orange badge fraudulently is the same as using a tax disc fraudulently, or driving without insurance. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this amendment.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I do indeed have considerable sympathy with the principle behind this proposed new clause. I am very grateful for the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (De Knayth). I do listen. Unfortunately, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I am not always able to agree with everything that is put forward.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I know that only too well.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Perhaps I do not agree with the noble Lord as much as he would like me to do, but I have considerable sympathy with the principle of this new clause.

I should explain that there is already an offence of misusing, an orange badge to profit by a disabled person's concession under Section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and that what we are discussing here is the need for a supplementary offence. Able-bodied people who misuse orange badges have contributed greatly to the scheme becoming discredited in the eyes of other road users and we are keen to ensure that the parking benefits which disabled people quite rightly enjoy are not abused by able-bodied people.

However, following a major review we have undertaken into the working of the orange badge scheme, to which I referred when we were discussing an earlier amendment, we propose to introduce a package of changes. The most important from an enforcement point of view, and one which does not need primary legislation, is the introduction of a new passport-style badge with a photograph. That will not be stuck to car windscreens as orange badges are at present. It will be carried by the motorist and left on the dashboard when the vehicle is parked. That is a substantial step forward in dealing with abuse of the scheme. The temptation for people to use a badge to which they are not entitled will be greatly reduced when it can be easily discovered that they are not the legitimate badge holder.

As soon as we are satisfied that we have the right package of changes, we shall go ahead with the new style badge. We shall then need to review what supporting changes in future legislation might be needed. I am by no means sure that an offence of displaying an orange badge when the badge holder is not in the vehicle would be needed to support the new badge. With new passport-style badge, the holder will not need to display it at all times. He will normally keep it in his wallet. So a generalised offence relating to display will be unnecessary. When the car is parked, the badge will be on display and will be covered by the existing offence.

My noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the existing offence causes prosecution difficulties for various reasons to which I listened carefully. I shall wish to look hard at what has been said in that respect. As I have explained, my original impression was that such an offence will be unnecessary when the new badge scheme is accepted. Without commitment, I should like to return to this issue at a later stage.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Before the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, replies, the Committee is grateful to the Minister for what appears to be a more positive response on this issue than on others. As I understand it, he is not closing the door on this legislation being amended to encompass the issue where apparently the Government's thinking is rather more advanced and which would not have to await the outcome of broader consultations on the orange badge scheme to which I alluded previously. I hope that my interpretation is right. If it is, I warmly applaud the Minister's response. He has strongly indicated that he will consider returning with this matter on Report, and that is an important concession.

Lord Swinfen

I thank my noble friend for what he has said and for offering to return to this matter at a later stage. How advanced is his department's thinking on this issue? How close are we to implementation? Is the department just thinking about it and going to put it on the drawing board at some time in the future? Is it on the drawing board, or are models being made? Which stage have we reached? He also said that when the scheme was thought out he might have to use future legislation to put some parts of it into operation. Legislation is going through Parliament at the moment in the form of the Bill. If the Bill is not to be used as the vehicle for the new scheme, when will another Bill that can be used come before Parliament? I know of nothing in the planning stage.

5.15 p.m

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Is my noble friend referring to the new passport-style badge?

Lord Swinfen

Yes.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Our plans on the new badge are well advanced. It is a question of introducing it with the changes to which I referred on this amendment and earlier amendments. I have said that I cannot give a firm date as to when the whole package of proposals might be brought into effect. The new passport-style badge will be one of the matters to be introduced with the rest. I have already said that most of the proposed changes to the new orange badge scheme will not require primary legislation. If our conclusion is that the change proposed in the amendment is needed, which I have said we shall consider although I have not given a commitment to agree to it, it would be possible to make it in the Bill.

Lord Swinfen

Does my noble friend believe that the new passport-style badge would go a long way towards dealing with the other problems suffered by disabled drivers that have been mentioned this afternoon?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Yes, I do.

Lord Swinfen

That is every indication that matters will be moved on as fast as possible. I shall read what everyone has said, and in particular what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5 [Parking penalties]:

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 116: Page 89, line 17, at end insert ("and (g) the effect of paragraph 5 below.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 to 123.

Schedule 5 deals with the procedures to be followed subsequent to the issue of a penalty charge notice by a London authority parking attendant in respect of contraventions of permitted parking regulations. The schedule sets out the details to be included in a notice to owner which may be issued by a London authority if a penalty charge notice remains unpaid after 28 days. The notice provides a right for the motorist to make representations to the appropriate local authority concerning the service of the notice and for that authority to consider and respond to the representations. The schedule goes on to detail the procedure to be followed for the making of appeals to a parking adjudicator if the motorist is dissatisfied at the outcome of the local authority's consideration of his representations.

The eight proposed amendments which have been tabled are all of a technical nature. They are all intended to make the schedule more comprehensive and to improve the operation of the provisions for representations and appeals. I consider therefore that they are likely to be generally welcomed as presenting a reasonable safeguard for the motorists. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

We generally welcome the amendments, which are essentially drafting amendments. However, I have one point of concern about Amendment No. 122. That amendment sets out circumstances whereby a keeper who has appealed to the relevant local authority and had the appeal turned down can appeal to the adjudicator. The appeal has to be made within 28 days or: such longer period as a parking adjudicator may allow". What reason is there for allowing the adjudicator to increase the length of time within which keepers can appeal? Will not that extended period lead to uncertainty on what is essentially a clear issue? A similar point arises in relation to Amendment No. 144. I shall not raise it again if I am satisfied by what the Minister says.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

Amendment No. 122 substitutes a new paragraph 5. It provides the procedures for making an appeal to a parking adjudicator within 28 days, as the noble Lord said, or within such longer time as permitted by a parking adjudicator. If such an appeal is made, the adjudicator is required to consider the representations in question as well as any additional representations which are made by the appellant on any of the grounds listed in paragraph 2(4).

The reason for the delay essentially rests with the point that discretion should be allowed, for example, if the motorist was out of the country, ill, or for some other similar cause. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 123:

Page 89, line 45, at end insert: ("(f) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.").

Page 90, line 10, at end insert: ("(7) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—

1. (a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
2. (b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.").

Page 90, line 13, leave out from ("accept") to end of line 15 and insert ("that the ground in question has been established they shall—

1. (a) cancel the notice to owner; and
2. (b) state in the notice served under paragraph 2(7) above that the notice to owner has been cancelled.").

Page 90, line 24, leave out from ("concerned") to second ("notice") in line 27 and insert ("do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under paragraph 2(7) above ("the").

Page 90, line 37, leave out ("procedural rules as to the form") and insert ("form and manner").

Page 90, line 41, leave out paragraph 5 and insert: ("5.—(1) Where an authority serve notice under sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 2 above, that they do not accept that a ground on which representations were made under that paragraph has been established, the person making those representations may, before—

1. (a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or
2. (b) such longer period as a parking adjudicator may allow,

appeal to a parking adjudicator against the authority's decision.

(2) On an appeal under this paragraph, the parking adjudicator shall consider the representations in question and any additional representations which are made by the appellant on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 2(4) above and may give the London authority concerned such directions as he considers appropriate.

(3) Its shall be the duty of any authority to whom a direction is given under sub-paragraph (2) above to comply with it forthwith.").

Page 92, line 19, leave out ("provides a statement") and insert ("makes any representation under paragraph 2 or 5(2) above").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61 [Recovery of vehicles or of proceeds of disposal]:

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:

Page 54, line 33, leave out from ("storage") to end of line 34 and insert: ("of the vehicle—

1. (i) as the authority may require; or
2. (ii) in the case of sums payable to a competent authority which is not a local authority, as may be prescribed.").

Page 55, line 1, leave out from ("disposal") to end of line 2 and insert: ("of the vehicle—

1. (i) as the authority may require; or
2. (ii) in the case of sums payable to a competent authority which is not a local authority, as may be prescribed.").

The noble Lord said: These are both technical amendments. Clause 61 of the Bill amends Section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which deals with the ultimate disposal of vehicles abandoned and removable under the Act. The two new subsections added to Section 101 by this clause are applicable to London only and enable the owner of a vehicle removed by a London authority to recover the vehicle if the outstanding penalty charge, and such sums in respect of the removal and storage as the authority may require, are paid. If the vehicle has been sold, the owner will be paid the proceeds of the sale less the penalty charge and such sums in respect of removal, storage and disposal as the authority may require.

However, an unwanted effect of the revisions to Section 101 is that they will oblige the police in London to charge the same sums for removal, storage and disposal as those charged by the London authorities. The levels of charges that the police in London and elsewhere apply are prescribed by the Home Secretary under the provisions of separate regulations unrelated to this Bill.

These two amendments have been tabled, therefore, to allow where appropriate that a "competent authority", other than a local authority, may charge such sums as are prescribed. "Competent authority" is defined in Section 101(8) of the 1984 Act as including the police. The ability of the police in London to continue to charge the sums prescribed in the regulations is thus preserved. I therefore recommend that the Committee accept these two amendments.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 62 [Charges for removal, storage and disposal of vehicles]:

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 126: Page 55, line 16, leave out ("9 or section") and insert ("6, 9 or").

The noble Lord said: The new subsection (2) (d) in Section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empowers London authorities to recover from any person responsible such charges as they may require for the removal, storage and disposal in respect of a vehicle removed from a designated parking place under Sections 9 and 45 of the Act. At present, the authorities do not have power to recover their charges and consequently do not remove vehicles from such parking places.

The majority of parking places in London are believed to be designated under Section 45, but Section 6 powers may have been used to designate free parking places even though free parking places can also be designated under Section 45. This amendment therefore broadens the application of the new subsection (2) (d) to include parking places designated in traffic regulation orders made under Section 6 of the 1984 Act.

The amendment will only be of assistance to London authorities if my right honourable friend the Secretary of State amends the removal of vehicles regulations made under Section 99 of the 1984 Act to enable the authorities to remove vehicles from Section 6 designated parking places. He proposes to effect such an amendment once the amended powers to make those regulations, also in the Bill in Schedule 3, are in force. The London authorities will then have a full armoury of powers so far as vehicle removal is concerned. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 63 [Immobilisation of vehicles in parking places]:

[Amendments Nos. 126A and 126E not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 63 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount Mountgarret

First, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Fanshawe who is unable to be present, so I am a lone voice crying in the wilderness. The objection to the clause, I assure the Committee, does not arise from any form of abject dislike or distaste at being clamped, although I suppose that most people do not particularly like it. It is rather to encourage the removal of illegally parked motor cars.

There can be nothing more infuriating—at least I think so —than to try to find somewhere to park the car. We see a parking area and find that a car has been clamped because it sat there longer than it was supposed to. It denies the use of that parking area to any other citizen. It reduces the amount of money that may be fed into the parking meter by the new customer. It does no good to anybody. There would be nothing to stop the person so clamped from keeping his car there for ever and a day, if he wished. No one can remove it. Having said that, I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that it is quite possible to remove a clamp. All one does is to deflate the tyre and the wheel falls out of the clamp. However, that is another point and I shall not let on as to whether I have gone down that route myself.

Joking apart, this not only happens in parking bays. Cars are clamped in residents' parking areas which, in all conscience, are few enough anyway for the number of people in London who have cars outside their homes. It must be frustrating for them. Worse still, I am sure Members of the Committee have seen all over London that cars have been clamped on double yellow lines and in places where they are not allowed to park where they cause inconvenience and are an obstruction. It does no one any good to immobilise vehicles.

I suggest that instead of clamping them we should substantially extend the removal of cars. It is far more inconvenient to a person who has parked his car illegally or inconsiderately to have to go miles to the north, south, east or west of London, to fetch it. It would not be impossible to set up a force rather like traffic wardens and licensed under the authority of the Metropolitan Police. We cannot have the time of the police taken up in removing cars. That force would work within parameters and guidelines and it would physically remove cars. The cost to the taxpayer would be nil. If anyone were kind enough to suggest that they would offer me a contract for removing cars in London, I could make a healthy profit. In other words, the costs of the exercise would be borne by the offender. My noble friend and I therefore wonder whether there is any merit in wheel-clamping and whether it defeats its own object. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I have a good deal of sympathy with the speech of my noble friend and with his objection. I have never thought that clamping was a good idea ever since its introduction into our road traffic system. After all, the major reason for dealing with a vehicle that is wrongly parked is that it is obstructing the traffic or is parked in such a way that it constitutes a danger to traffic. However, what is certain is that clamping ensures that the vehicle stays put. That seems to me a self-defeating object. As my noble friend has said—I wholly agree with him—where a car is wrongly parked, the solution is to take it away either by towing or on a truck. Such an action is perhaps even more disturbing to the owner of a car than for him to return to find his car has been clamped.

There is also the matter of the time limit on clamping. If someone parks his car where he should not and goes abroad on holiday, his car may be clamped. No one else will be interested in that car. I hope my noble friend can tell me how many weeks, months or years the car will remain clamped. Does it simply remain in a place where it should not be parked and where it is probably obstructing the traffic? I believe clamping has been a mistake. I very much regret the fact that clamping has been turned into a business. I believe it was a mistake to introduce clamping into our road traffic system as the powers to remove vehicles deal adequately with this evil. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend's speech.

The Earl of Shannon

I wish to express sympathy with the two Members of the Committee who have just spoken. As they pointed out, the philosophy of clamping is utter, blithering nonsense.

There is another point which occurs to me that I do not think has been touched on before. I remember sitting in this Chamber when the matter was first discussed. The Government were more or less asking Parliament for permission to indulge in this activity. If I remember correctly, we were given two reasons for introducing clamping. The first was that it would deter persistent offenders. But has it deterred persistent offenders? The other reason—this is much more serious because it meant that Parliament was conned; there is no other way to describe it—was that it was claimed clamping was the only way to deal with the diplomatic corps.

Parliament accepted clamping and within about a week the Government were advised that the cars of diplomats could not be clamped under the terms of a convention. No one is going to tell me that the Government did not know that that was the case during the previous week when they were asking permission of Parliament to introduce clamping. Clamping was put through Parliament almost under false pretences.

If I remember rightly, various questions have been asked in this Chamber and in another place about who authorises clamping. We were told that, although clamping was put out to private contractors, a police constable always had to give permission for clamping to take place. However, I believe it was only 10 days ago that I read in the press that a police force was furious when it discovered that a disabled person's moped had been clamped and also that a police car had been clamped. Where was the police constable in those circumstances? This matter needs to be carefully considered as it does not bear scrutiny.

Lord Underhill

One has a lot of sympathy with the comments made by those who have spoken so far. However, Clause 63(1) relates to, the case of a stationary vehicle in a designated parking place". In other words, we are discussing designated parking places. We are not talking about clamping vehicles parked on yellow lines where they may pose a danger to other traffic. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. To clamp a vehicle parked in a dangerous place poses a danger in itself and should not be attempted. However, we are talking about designated parking places. Clamping in designated parking places constitutes the only effective deterrent for persistent offenders.

Anyone who has spoken to someone whose car has been clamped will know that such a person will not risk having it happen again. I agree that in many circumstances towing vehicles away may be a more sensible course to take. However, we must consider this matter in the context of designated parking places and of the circumstances specified in Clause 60. While I have some sympathy with what has been said, I believe there is a good case for keeping Clause 63 in the Bill.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope I may comment on his point about authorised parking places. Does that not make clamping worse as it ensures that a valuable parking space—in London all parking spaces are valuable—is occupied for an indefinite period by a clamped vehicle? Is not clamping a worse course of action to take in that situation than in other situations?

Baroness Faithfull

I know two people who prefer to pay fines for clamping as a result of having parked in designated parking places as that means their cars cannot be stolen while they are away on holiday.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

We have had an interesting debate. I have heard some of the concerns about clamping expressed on previous occasions in the Chamber. I do not think anyone expects clamping to be popular. That is not the purpose of it. I do not believe that the concerns are well founded.

At present wheel-clamping in London may be authorised by a police officer only where a parked vehicle is in breach of the criminal parking law within the approved wheel-clamping zone. Clause 63 provides. for local authority parking attendants in London to authorise wheel-clamping action, or take it themselves, in the case of vehicles which they believe have infringed the new decriminalised controls at designated parking places such as meter bays and residents' bays. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was right to stress that point. The clause requires the attendants to follow strict procedures and provides new offences against interference with the clamps or attempt. at removal of the clamps. I was interested to hear how my noble friend Lord Mountgarret attempts to remove wheel-clamps. I draw his attention to Section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It is an offence to remove or attempt to remove a wheel-clamp. I say that as a warning to my noble friend.

In the main the requirements and provisions mirror those that apply to police wheel-clamping. Wheel-clamping by the London authorities will be an integral part of the system of enforcing the new permitted parking controls in London. It is needed to ensure that the system is both effective and viable.

The benefits of wheel-clamping as a deterrent against illegal parking cannot be doubted. Its introduction in 1983 and its gradual extension in central London since then have been subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. Annual surveys by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory show that illegal parking on yellow lines has fallen by over 50 per cent. since the introduction of wheel-clamping. Illegal parking acts at residents' bays have also fallen significantly. The revenue flow of parking charges to local authorities has improved both from meters and at off-street car parks and this has led to an increased chance of finding a legal parking space. I say that in reply to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon.

The presence of a wheel-clamped vehicle on the street is a strong, visible deterrent to other would-be offenders. Wheel-clamping is also cost-effective, as its costs are fully recovered in the fee charged for—and Obtained—before the vehicle is released. Under the Bill the London authorities will in addition be able to recover the penalty charge before releasing the offending vehicle.

I believe it is wrong to view the clamping of a vehicle as simply perpetuating the offence of unlawful parking. As I have said, it offers a salutary lesson to others who might be tempted to park illegally. Where the vehicle is impeding traffic flow it is more likely to be removed on the grounds of obstruction. I certainly agree that removal is also a powerful component in the armoury of weapons against illegal parking. However, I believe it is Complementary to wheel-clamping and is not always an alternative to it.

Across central London—which covers the city of Westminster, the City, Kensington and Chelsea and parts of Camden and Hammersmith and Fulham—over 10,000 vehicles are wheel-clamped every month. The fact that very few of those cases hits the headlines is a reflection on the extent to which clamping has now been accepted by the motoring public as an appropriate response to illegal parking. It is also a tribute to the manner in which clamping has been fairly and justly carried out by the Metropolitan Police. That is the standard which the local authorities must seek to emulate.

Checks and balances are written into the Bill. For example, the Secretary of State will be able to control the level of the wheel-clamping fee. So it would be wrong to suppose that wheel-clamping itself will be a licence to make money. In addition, there will be the parking adjudicator under Clause 66 to whom representations can be made in cases of grievance. Further guidance on procedure can always be given by the Secretary of State under Clause 57, and there are the standard exemptions given in Clause 64, including full protection for orange badge holders.

My noble friends Lord Mountgarret, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lady Faithfull suggested that having one's vehicle clamped was a good way to leave it while on holiday. I would not advise that. Clamped vehicles remaining on the road for more than 24 hours are normally, and should be, removed to the vehicle pound.

At the end of the day we are all anxious to see that parking regulations are properly enforced for the benefit of the law-abiding motorist and for the good of the capital generally. Wheel-clamping has proved itself thoroughly as an effective weapon against the selfish and inconsiderate motorist. I believe that it has a legitimate place in the armoury of the local authorities alongside the other powers being made available to them in the Bill. Therefore I believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Viscount Mountgarret

I am grateful for the support that I have received from unexpected quarters for my reasons for suggesting that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has drawn my attention to the fact that we are dealing only with designated parking spaces rather than parking anywhere. I take his point. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was absolutely right to say that that enforces the argument that vehicles should be removed if they are taking up a designated parking space to the exclusion of the law-abiding motorist.

My noble friend Lord Brabazon has said, and I shall not argue with him, that wheel-clamping is a deterrent to the illegal parking of motor cars. At the same time it has certainly greatly affected the law-abiding motorist. That is the person I seek to protect. There is not a single thing that my noble friend has said which will make me change my view.

My noble friend said that clamping is a visible deterrent. Indeed it is, but I know what I should prefer. If I had a lovely, brand new—I was going to say combine harvester—Rolls-Royce I would far rather see it securely clamped than have a crane lift it up, swing it around and dump it on a truck to be carted away to a pound. That is a very visible deterrent and far more effective than a clamp.

My noble friend Lady Faithfull was absolutely right. One could leave the vehicle there while one goes on holiday. There may be a guideline of 24 hours but I can assure my noble friend Lord Brabazon that I have seen many vehicles near where I live in London —the Kensington area—which have been left clamped for several days, either at parking meters or in residents' parking places. The intention may be to remove them after 24 hours but in practice it does not work like that.

Perhaps mine is a lone voice crying in the wilderness but it may not be entirely a lone voice. We ought to find out what the Committee feels about the matter. We have to do something to protect the law-abiding motorist. I should like to know what the feeling of the Committee is on this matter.

On Question, Clause 63 agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

Clause 64 [Exemptions from section 63]:

Viscount Mountgarret had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 128: Page 56, line 22, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 60 and").

The noble Viscount said: I was caught out. I misheard the question being put. We have covered Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 in connection with Amendment No. 114 when the matter was discussed. I shall therefore not move the amendments.

Lord Underhill

The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, intervened on a previous government amendment and said that he was speaking to these four amendments. However, no one else had known that he would do so and therefore no one else has spoken to the amendments because that was not in our briefing. The Minister did not refer to them. I was inclined to offer sympathetic support for the noble Viscount's amendments. I should like to know the Government's reason as to why those amendments should not be approved. They certainly do not appear on the grouping list with the earlier amendment although the noble Viscount thought that that was the position.

Viscount Mountgarret

I am sorry about this. I am slightly confused. I thought that the matters referred to in Amendment No. 114 were in essence what I propose in my Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 and I thought that the point had been covered. However, if it is the Committee's wish that the amendments should be moved I am happy to do so but I see no reason to add anything further to what I said in connection with Amendment No. 114. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Perhaps I may respond briefly to the amendments. I apologise to my noble friend. When he mentioned the amendments in the course of our discussion of Amendment No. 114 I did not respond. Perhaps I should have done so then. However, this is a very different issue from the one we discussed in relation to Amendment No. 114.

I do not believe that there is any justifications for allowing any period of grace before a penalty charge notice is issued. It would destroy the purpose of the sanction. I understand that it can be very frustrating if a motorist is unforeseeably delayed and comes back to his parked car five or 10 minutes late only to find a ticket on the windscreen. However, I am afraid that, the world being what it is, if the motorist knew that he had an extra 30 minutes before he could receive a penalty notice, he would simply use that time as an entitlement to free parking. That would not be consistent with our aim to produce a rational and commercial system of on-street parking. It would also reduce parking opportunities for other motorists seeking short-term on-street parking spaces.

I agree that the position on wheel-clamping is slightly different and I accept that a period of grace is reasonable because it is a particularly serious and inconvenient sanction for drivers. A 30-minute period is too long, particularly as a driver may have paid for only 60 minutes of parking time, or perhaps less. Fifteen minutes is a reasonable compromise period. It allows a little leeway for those who are genuinely delayed and is not so long as to lead to an abuse of the system.

Extended periods of grace would be used by drivers as "free" time. The likely consequence would be that the local authorities would seek to distort the parking and penalty charges or the system would become uneconomic, which is not acceptable. Of course provision is made for drivers who are aggrieved at local authority enforcement action, including the issue of penalty charge notices, to make representations to the local authority concerned and they may ultimately appeal to the independent parking adjudicators.

Lord Underhill

I am interested in the Minister's reply. As Clause 64 allows 15 minutes, what is the present position? Perhaps the noble Lord will explain. Is any extra time allowed? I have found myself in difficulty two minutes afterwards. Is it a case of being dead on time?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

We are talking here only about clamping, not about all penalty charges to which my noble friend's amendment refers. As I understand the position on clamping, it is a little unclear as to how much time is allowed afterwards. The Bill allows 15 minutes which we believe is the right period.

Viscount Mountgarret

I am grateful for my noble friend's response. I take his point. It seems best to leave the Bill as it stands. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 129: Page 56, line 25, leave out ("15") and insert ("30").

The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 130. There has been a slight printing error on the Marshalled List. My noble friend Lord Fanshawe has not put his name to these amendments. Something appears to have gone wrong. A period of 15 minutes is a little short. My noble friend may consider 30 minutes' grace to be more realistic these days. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I apologise to my noble friend. He did not move the amendment last time although we had agreed that Amendments Nos. 128 to 131 should be grouped together. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I attempted to deal with my noble friend's proposal for an extension from 15 to 30 minutes and I have nothing more to add.

Viscount Mountgarret

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]

Clause 64 agreed to.

Clause 65 [Representations in relation to immobilisation of vehicles under section 63]:

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 132: Page 57, line 1, leave out from ("vehicle") to end of line 13 and insert. ("who—

1. (a) removes it from the custody of a London authority in accordance with subsection (4A) of section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (ultimate disposal of vehicles abandoned and removable under that Act);
2. (b) receives any sum in respect of the vehicle under subsection (5A) of that section;
3. (c) is informed that the proceeds of sale of the vehicle did not exceed the aggregate amount mentioned in subsection (5A) of that section; or
4. (d) secures its release from an immobilisation device in accordance with section 63(4) of this Act,

shall thereupon be informed of his right under this section to make representations to the relevant authority and of the effect of section (Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65) of this Act.

(2) The relevant authority shall give that information, or shall cause. it to be given, in writing. (3) Any person to whom subsection (1) above applies may make representations to the relevant authority on one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (4) below.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 133 to 143 and to Amendment No. 144.

When the Bill was introduced in the other place, there had been insufficient time to draft provisions which would allow the owner of a vehicle removed by a local authority parking attendant to make representations to the relevant authority and which, if the representations were rejected by the authority, would allow a right of appeal to a parking adjudicator. The Bill has therefore gone forward on the basis of Clause 65 providing only for representations and appeals against wheel-clamping actions by a London authority under Clause 63.

The amendments have therefore been tabled to include provisions for representations and appeals against removal action taken by a London authority. There is need to provide a protection for drivers or owners who feel aggrieved at a local authority enforcement action and that should extend to removal action as well as wheel-clamping. Because of the resultant size and complexity of the extended clause, I propose that the provisions relating to representations to London authorities should be separated from those relating to appeals to a parking adjudicator. Clause 65 therefore will deal only with the question of representations to a London authority about wheel-clamping or removal action and the proposed new clause after Clause 65 will contain the provisions for appeals to a parking adjudicator.

Amendments consequential to the broadening of the scope of the clause to include removals are also proposed. The list of grounds on which a representation may be made is extended to include the case where a penalty or other charge in question exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. The amendments place a duty on a London authority to consider and reply to representations and to inform an owner, where it has not accepted that a ground on which representations have been made has been established, that the owner has a right to appeal to a parking adjudicator. That is now explicit in the provisions of the Bill.

The new clause provides that an owner, dissatisfied about a London authority's decision on his representations under Clause 65 about removal or wheel-clamping, may appeal to a parking adjudicator against the authority's decision within 28 days. The adjudicator is required to consider the representations and any additional representations made and, if he accepts that they are justified, he shall direct the authority to make the necessary refund. The authority will be under a duty to comply with such a direction.

As Members of the Committee will realise, the amendments are in the nature of technical and drafting amendments which clearly establish the principle that owners should have an entitlement to make representations to the London authority and to make appeals to the parking adjudicator. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 133: Page 57, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 133A to 133C not moved.]

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 134: Page 57, line 23, leave out ("or").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 134A and 134B not moved.]

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment Nos. 135 to 143:

Page 57, line 25, at end insert: ("() in a case within subsection (1) (d) above, that, by virtue of an exemption given by section 64 of this Act, section 63 of this Act did not apply to the vehicle at the time in question; or () that the penalty or other charge in question exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case."). Page 57, line 26, leave out ("The") and insert ("An"). Page 57, line 29, leave out ("(a)"). Page 57, line 30, leave out subsections (6), (7), (8) and (9) and insert: ("(6) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this section, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which they receive the representations—

1. (a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and,
2. (b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

(7) Where an authority serve notice under subsection (6) (b) above that they accept that a ground has been established they shall (when serving that notice) refund any sums—

1. (a) paid under subsection (4A) of section 101 of the Act of 1984 when the vehicle was removed from the custody of the authority;
2. (b) deducted from the proceeds of sale of the vehicle under subsection (5A) of that section; or
3. (c) paid under section 63(4) of this Act when the vehicle was released,

except to the extent (if any) to which those sums were properly paid or deducted.

(8) Where an authority serve notice under subsection (6) (b) above that they do not accept that a ground has been established, that notice shall—

1. (a) inform the person on whom it is served of his right to appeal to a parking adjudicator under section (Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65) of this Act;
2. (b) indicate the nature of a parking adjudicator's power to award costs against any person appealing to him under that section; and
3. (c) describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal is required to be made.").

Page 57, line 47, leave out ("representations in question are justified") and insert ("ground in question has been established"). Page 58, line 3, leave out subsections (I 1), (12) and (13). Page 58, line 11, after ("section") insert ("or section (Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65) of this Act"). Page 58, line 18, at end insert: ("(16A) Where the person on whom any document is required to be served by subsection (6) above is a body corporate, the document is duly served if it is sent by post to the secretary or clerk of that body."). Page 58, line 19, after ("section") insert ("and in section (Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65) of this Act").

On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 144: After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:

Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65

(".—(1) Where an authority serve notice under subsection (6) of section 65 of this Act that they do not accept that a ground on which representations were made under that section has been established, the person making those representations may, before—

1. (a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or
2. (b) such longer period as a parking adjudicator may allow,

appeal to a parking adjudicator against the authority's decision.

(2) On an appeal under this section, the parking adjudicator shall consider the representations in question and any additional representations which are made by the appellant on any of the grounds mentioned in section 65(4) of this Act and, if he concludes—

1. (a) that any of the representations are justified; and
2. (b) that the relevant authority would have been under the duty imposed by section 65(7) of this Act to refund any sum if they had served notice that they accepted that the ground in question had been established,

he shall direct that authority to make the necessary refund.

(3) It shall be the duty of any authority to whom such a direction is given to comply with it forthwith.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 66 [Appointment of parking adjudicators by joint committee of the London authorities]:

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 145: Page 59, line 15, leave out ("statutory instrument make regulations") and insert ("regulations make provision").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

The noble Lord says that this is purely a technical amendment, but is that so? It is hard to see the merits of making the change. The change removes a level of parliamentary scrutiny from the process. If my noble friend's amendment—Amendment no. 145A—is carried, the position may not be so difficult. As my noble friend will explain, there would be consultation. Is there any special merit in a change which removes a measure of parliamentary scrutiny?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

Clause 72(5) states: Any power to make an order or regulations conferred by this Part [of the Bill] shall be exercisable by statutory instrument". There is therefore no need for Clause 66(11) to state that regulations as to the procedures to be followed in relation to proceedings before parking adjudicators shall be made by statutory instrument. The revised wording omits the superfluous statement. I hope that that explanation is acceptable.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 145A: Page 59, line 17, at end insert: ("() Before making any regulations under subsection (11) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Joint Committee.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment calls for consultation with the joint committee before the Government make any regulations under subsection (11). Clause 66(11) sets out no fewer than 16 matters on which the Secretary of State shall issue regulations as to how the parking adjudication procedures will operate. This is a novel procedure. It is important that it should be regulated by the Secretary of State.

The trouble is that many of the issues for regulation involve cost implications for the joint committee which has to fund the procedure. These include the procedure for the appeal, the likelihood of appeals in written form, the award of costs and procedures for the notification of decisions. I should have thought that it was perfectly reasonable to enable the joint committee to be consulted so far as concerns these regulations. I do not assert that the Minister will say so, but if he were to say that this would involve undue bureaucracy and be long-winded, it would be a flawed argument because there is no reason for that to be the case. The result would be to ensure that the body that will have to provide and finance the service will be involved in its regulation.

There is another matter of some worry which I raise here rather than in the discussion on whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. It has a connection with what I have been saying, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider it now. The burdens which are to be undertaken by local authorities in the form of the joint committee are very considerable indeed. I want to know what the Government propose to do to ensure that those additional financial burdens which are set out, for example in Clause 66(8) among others, can be properly discharged. These days more and more responsibilities are being imposed on local authorities by legislation without providing the wherewithal to enable them to undertake those duties satisfactorily and efficiently.

Another point that I should like to raise is that the start up costs of the matters referred to in Clause 66 are likely to be considerable. My understanding is that a very large computer, possibly costing as much as £20 million or £30 million, will have to be installed and consequently that is expenditure which will be undertaken before any income is received from the scheme.

At the beginning of the Bill on page vi the Committee will see a reference to the scheme as self-financing. It states: There will be additional income from charges and the system, overall, should be self financing". That cannot be the case in terms of the start-up costs because t that stage there is no money coming in and presumably it will take rather a long time for those expenses to be consumed by the revenue that will be attracted as a result of the operation of the scheme.

Those are quite important points, and I ask the Minister to address them in addition to the points that I specifically raised in relation to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

It is our intention to consult the Council on Tribunals on the procedure regulations to apply in proceedings before parking adjudicators. They are the body with special competence in such matters. The parking adjudicators system will come under the direct supervision of the Council on Tribunals with regard to such matters, by application of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. We do not believe it is necessary or desirable to provide for further statutory consultation on the preparation of the procedure regulations, but there will be informal consultation on the draft statutory instrument. I should expect that to include the joint committee.

The noble Lord asked about two areas of cost and mentioned the financial burden under Clause 66(8). I can confirm that the new parking system will be self-financing and that will include parking adjudicators. With regard to the start up costs about which he spoke, I shall have to look into that matter and let him know further.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Before we pass from this amendment, perhaps my noble friend could enlighten me on two points. What sort of person is it intended to appoint as a parking adjudicator and, broadly, on what sort of salary scale? Perhaps we may be given some idea of the costs involved.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I am afraid that I have no idea on either point. I shall look into the matter and inform my noble friend.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I do not understand. If the Minister says that they are prepared informally to consult, why cannot he actually accept a statutory obligation to do so? It does not seem to make sense to me.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

We are talking about procedures and how the system will work.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Precisely, but it is because the joint committee has a considerable interest in perceiving how the scheme will work that in my view they have a right to be consulted. I should have thought that it was just as easy for the Government to accept this amendment as not to do so. It seems to me that if they intend to consult I should have thought it would be accepted as a statutory obligation.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

As the noble Lord will have gathered, I am not quite clear about the answer and therefore it is only fair that I should look further into the matter. I have subsequently had advice about the questions raised by my noble friend. To be qualified for appointment as a parking adjudicator, a person must have five-year general qualifications within the meaning of Section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. I hope that goes some way towards answering him.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I think that the figure is £100,000 a year, and a PhD is needed. But it would be quite easy so to qualify.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Perhaps there will be some applications from this Chamber.

Lord Clinton-Davis

The noble Lord and I will be first in the queue. However, the Minister has been very frank. He does not have the answer. He will consider the matter and come back to it. I am most grateful.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 146: Page 60, line 15, at end insert: ("(15A) Subsection (15) above does not apply to a penalty charge which remains payable following an adjudication under paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to this Act.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is of a technical nature. Unless amended by the proposed new subsection, there is a danger that drivers or owners who, quite properly, have followed the appeals procedures written down in Schedule 5 but failed in those appeals, may be required to pay a penalty charge immediately as if the amount were subject to a court order, instead of following the procedures set down in Schedule 5 for the recovery of unpaid penalties.

The amendment therefore avoids that situation while at the same time retaining the ability of a local authority or an individual to recover other amounts payable as if they were subject to a county court order, such as costs and wheel-clamping charges.

As presently worded, Clause 66(15) may possibly be read so that penalty charges are to be included in the amount payable following an adjudication under Schedule 5, as if they were payable under a county court order. That is not the intention. If it were, the procedures set down in Schedule 5 for the recovery of unpaid penalty charges, and for their enhancement by a charge certificate should payment be delayed overlong, could be bypassed following an adjudication.

Therefore the amendment specifically excludes those penalty charges from the application of Clause 66(15). Penalty charges payable following an adjudication by the parking adjudicator under Schedule 5 should be pursued, if not paid, in the same way that other unpaid penalty charges are pursued under the provisions of Schedule 5. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

The Minister said that it was a technical amendment. That is contrary to the advice that I have been given. It seems contrary to the fact that it was necessary for the noble Lord to give a detailed explanation to make clear the purpose of the government amendment.

I am informed that the Bill requires any payment due after the adjudication process to be paid as though it was an order of the court. The proposed amendment disapplies that provision from the original penalty charge. That means that even after adjudication a local authority may have to go back to the county court to obtain a court order to enforce payment if the keeper refuses to pay.

That seems a completely unnecessary move. If the keeper has been through an adjudication process, there will already have been two opportunities to contest the penalty: with the local authority directly; and with the adjudicator. Although we welcome every opportunity for people to appeal, to allow a further opportunity to challenge the penalty seems a complete waste of time and effort. I should like to hear the Government's justification for the amendment.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

Sometimes if we do not speak to a technical amendment, we are challenged. Sometimes we say too much. However, I believe that the noble Lord's points were covered in my answer which was complicated. Perhaps having read the answer, the noble Lord will agree that those points are covered. If not, I shall come back to the issue.

Lord Underhill

The Minister kindly makes that offer. I agree that it is a complicated matter; it is complicated for me. I act on advice, as does the noble Lord. I readily accept his suggestion that I read what he said.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

The noble Lord is right. The adjudicator has no means of enforcing his orders; and the county court has.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 147: Page 60, line 19, after ("make") insert ("and publish").

The noble Lord said: This brings forward a principle contained in an Opposition amendment tabled, but not selected for debate, at the Report stage of the consideration of this Bill in the other place.

We accept that there is a good case for publishing the joint committee's annual report to the Secretary of State on the discharge by the parking adjudicators of their functions. The adjudicators are a major safeguard for owners and drivers using the new system of permitted parking in London. The report is to be made to the Secretary of State so he can be satisfied that the new system is being enforced fairly. The report is to be made in the public interest and there is good reason therefore for requiring the committee to publish it. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 [Fixing of certain parking and other charges for London]:

[Amendments Nos. 148 to 150 not moved.]

6.15 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 150A: Page 60, line 25, at end insert: ("() Any such additional parking charges may include the requirement that all outstanding parking charges registered against a specific vehicle and the current registered keeper should be paid as part of the release fee for vehicles which have been removed or immobilised.").

The noble Lord said: It has been emphasised in a number of debates today that a major problem in enforcing parking regulations is the persistent offender who consistently ignores the law and the penalty associated with it. Tracking down such offenders and enforcing payment requires considerable costs and effort. It is only when a vehicle is clamped or towed away that there is any certainty that the payment of penalties will be forthcoming. Even in those circumstances, the present system of enforcement causes difficulties since police pounds not only do not require the fixed penalty notice to be paid at the same time as the release fee, they will not even accept payment for the fixed penalty notice if it is offered. A bureaucratic inertia therefore encourages drivers not to pay their fixed penalty notices.

Unpaid fixed penalty notices can therefore be accumulated and in many cases mount up to large numbers. A study by the National Economic Development Office shows that of all those people who hal outstanding fixed penalty notices, no fewer than 40 per cent. had two or more notices outstanding. However, that number owed 80 per cent. of the outstanding income. Those are frightening figures. One driver had 57 fixed penalty notices unpaid, thereby owing a considerable amount. I believe the sum was about £700.

The procedure in the Bill make one advance. For local authority enforcement, the penalty charge is required to be paid as well as the release fee before a car which has been clamped or towed away can be released. That will bring about some improvement. However, greater improvement may be achieved if provision is made for persistent offenders. The amendment suggests that the penalty includes this requirement: if a vehicle is clamped or towed away, all outstanding penalties during the time that the current registered keeper has been the keeper of that vehicle must be paid before the vehicle is released unless such penalties; have been challenged and are subject to adjudication.

That would mean that a registered keeper of the vehicle would have to pay any outstanding penalties incurred during his period of liability unless he is in the process of challenging them.

A further safeguard is that the Secretary of State must approve all penalty charges under Clause 67 of the Bill. Such provision allows the Secretary of State the final say over the wording and operation of the approach to tackle persistent offenders. If approved the amendment offers an opportunity for a completely different style of enforcement in which local authorities would concentrate on getting offending motorists to pay the penalty charge and reserve the use of clamping for persistent offenders, thus addressing the problem of those very occasional offenders whose vehicles become clamped. There seems sound reason for the amendment. I welcome the Government's comments upon it.

Lord Tordoff

I support the important principle underlying the Bill. I do not know whether the Government will find technical faults with it; I am sure that they will. People are becoming very disillusioned by the fact that certain people seem to get away with not paying fines over and over again. People do not mind having to pay fines if they have been caught, but they object to a situation where large percentages of their fellow citizens seem to get away without paying time and again. Any provision which helps to restore the credibility of the system is to be welcomed.

Lord Swinfen

I too support the principle underlying the amendment. But how can one ensure that the driver of the vehicle is the person who pays the penalty, rather than the owner? They are not always the same person. An effective extension to the amendment might be for unpaid fines to be registered with the DVLC in Swansea, and for the vehicle not to be relicensed until such time as all outstanding parking fines are paid. In theory that should put the vehicle off the road. If it did not, there would also be a much higher penalty for the driver when caught.

The Earl of Harrowby

In his reply, will the Minister inform us whether the list of unpaid fines is computerised? Although I agree with much that has been said, the system would not be practicable unless the records were available for instantaneous response.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his introduction to the amendment. It gained a certain amount of support for reasons that I understand. However, I am unable to accept the amendment.

Procedures for local authorities to recover outstanding penalty charges issued under the new system of parking enforcement are already set out in Schedule 5 to the Bill. I believe that these procedures and the provision already made in Clause 63(4) that vehicles which have been wheel-clamped for breaches of the new controls should not be released until the penalty charge in respect of the breach has been paid will be effective in minimising unpaid penalties. I do not believe that there is a case for further sanctions.

Lord Tordoff

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are not dealing with further sanctions but with penalties whose payment is overdue. There is not a further sanction but moneys are owed to the local authority or whatever. There is not a new sanction but unpaid fines.

Lord Swinfen

Does the Minister consider that it is thoroughly unfair to the honest members of society who pay their fines if there is not a method of ensuring that fines properly imposed are paid? A method such as that proposed in the amendment would be effective, as would my suggestion of not allowing the vehicle to be re-licensed at the end of a year. A time limit would be set.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is right in saying that there are no further sanctions. I was about to say that there are a number of serious difficulties with the proposals in the amendment. For example, the person seeking recovery or release of the vehicle may not have been liable for the previous penalty charges. It would be wrong to face that person with demands for which he or she was not responsible. It would also be difficult to establish all the relevant facts of the previous cases at the time of collection; for example, they might be subject to an appeal to the parking adjudicator. It could also be the case that the unpaid notices were issued by a different local authority. In the absence of any central record system—and I must tell my noble friend that there is none—the procedure could become unmanageable. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Underhill

I shall consider withdrawing the amendment but not on the ground advanced by the Minister. We are not involved with the detail of the matter but with the principle. The Minister has advanced no argument as to why the principle should not be followed. In proposing the amendment I realised that if it received publicity I might do a disservice to the honest offender. There are honest offenders; there are people who receive only one fixed penalty notice which they pay immediately. We are talking about the persistent offender with whom the Government have agreed we must deal.

I understood the Minister to say in answer to his noble friend that there is no central computerised record. Someone could offend every day and could mount up fines worth thousands of pounds. I hope that the amendment will at least encourage the department to consider compiling a central register; otherwise we shall not deal with the persistent offender. In moving the amendment I have told people the best way of avoiding paying a fixed penalty notice. That was not my intention; I wished to catch them. Unless the Minister has any further comments to make I shall withdraw the amendment.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I recognise that I have simply advanced technical difficulties with the amendment. I also recognise the force with which the noble Lord dealt with the principle. It is that the person collecting the vehicle may not be liable and innocent citizens might be put at risk. I should like to look at the matter a little further because I have been unable totally to understand some of the advice that I have received. I am prepared to consider the principle.

Lord Underhill

I am grateful to the Minister. I became worried because I want the matter looked at not a little further but seriously. However, the Minister's last comment suggests that the Government will do that. I hope that at a later stage they will come forward with an amendment. We cannot deal with parking offenders in London unless we take action against persistent offenders.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I wish to add that anxiety about the issue is not confined to the other side of the Committee. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to reconsider the matter and comment upon it at the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I recognise the force of the argument on all sides of the Committee. I shall do exactly as my noble friend suggests.

Lord Underhill

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 151 to 156 not moved.]

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 157: Page 60, line 40, at end insert: ("(6A) The London authorities shall publish, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, the levels of additional parking charges which they have set.").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]

Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 68 [Immobilisation of vehicles in London by police]:

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 159: Page 61, line 16, leave out from ("consult") to end of line 18 and insert ("the appropriate local authority".").

The noble Lord said: This a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 160: After Clause 68, insert the following new clause:

Special parking areas

(".—(1) Where a London authority apply to the Secretary of State for an order to be made under this section, the Secretary of State may make an order designating the whole, or any part, of that authority's area as a special parking area.

(2) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the relevant Commissioner or, if appropriate, both Commissioners.

(3) While an order under this section is in force, the following provisions shall cease to apply in relation to the special parking area designated by the order—

1. (a) section 8 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (contravention of, or failure to comply with, an order under section 6 of that Act to be an offence), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision of such an order—
1. (i) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles on any road; or
2. (ii) relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act (conditions for loading or unloading, or delivery or collecting);
2. (b) section 11 of the Act of 1984 (contravention of, or failure to comply with, an experimental traffic order under section 9 of that Act to be an offence), so far as it relates to any contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision of such an experimental traffic order—
1. (i) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles on any road; or
2. (ii) relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act (conditions for loading or unloading, or delivery or collecting);
3. (c) section 16 of the Act of 1984 (contravention of a temporary restriction order or notice under section 14 of that Act to be an offence), so far as it relates to the contravention of any provision of an order or notice under section 14 of that Act which suspends any provision of an order made under section 45 or 46 of the Act of 1984;
4. (d) section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (parking of vehicles on verges, central reservations and footpaths etc. to be an offence);
5. (e) section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (parking of heavy vehicles on verges, central reservations and footpaths etc. to be an offence);
6. (f) section 21 of the Act of 1988 (prohibition of driving or parking on cycle tracks), so far as it makes it an offence to park a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (3) above by adding further provisions (but only in so far as they apply in relation to stationary vehicles).

(5) Before making an order under subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

1. (a) the two Commissioners; and
2. (b) such associations of London authorities (if any) as he thinks appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 161. During earlier stages of the progress of the Bill through the other place there was considerable all-party support for the idea of extending the powers of London authorities beyond those for enforcing the permitted parking controls already contained in the Bill. The Government have therefore developed a suitable scheme that will enable the London authorities to assume wider parking enforcement responsibilities. These two new clauses will enable the Secretary of State, on application by a London authority, to make an order decriminalising specifies parking offences in the area to which the order relates.

The decriminalised offences are specified in subsection (3) of the first new clause. Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State by order, after consultation with the police and the relevant local authority associations, to add to the list of decriminalised offences to apply in the special parking areas. Orders may be made in respect of the whole or any part of a London borough and they will be subject to negative resolution procedure in this Chamber or in the other place. The police will of course be consulted before an order is made.

Illegal parking on and adjacent to main strategic routes will continue to attract criminal sanctions and be enforced by the police and their traffic wardens. Off the main arteries, however, traffic and parking has fewer strategic implications but raises heightened environ mental and residential questions. Therefore, it is appropriate that the present illegal parking in those areas —except for endorsable offences—should be decriminalised and enforced by the London authorities.

Under the provisions of the second new clause the new sys tem of penalty charges developed for the enforcement of permitted parking are applied to the decriminalised offences within the special parking area. London authorities will have extended powers to wheel-clamp and remove vehicles in the special parking areas. There is also power in the order to modify any of the provisions of Part II of the Bill in respect elf their application in the special parking area.

It will be for the London authorities to propose the extent of the special parking areas. The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied with their proposals for enforcement control because there will be traffic and safety implications. He will need to be sure the authorities are in a position to take on the new responsibilities and to arrange a smooth transition in order to avoid any major problems or disruption. He will consult the police about the proposals. When he is satisfied, he will make an order decriminalising the specified parking offences in the special parking area.

Finally, I should explain that the police will retain overriding powers for use against vehicles parked anywhere in London where security or other policing issues are involved. They will be responsible for enforcing all parking controls on the main arteries other than those associated with permitted parking. Contraventions of these controls will remain criminal offences. The main arteries will include priority routes and some other roads as well. The precise selection of roads will be a matter for discussion between the local authorities, the police and the Secretary of State. In the special parking areas, the police will continue to enforce endorsable parking offences —for example, parking on a pedestrian crossing and dangerous parking—and will retain the power to deal with vehicles which cause an obstruction.

I commend these amendments to your Lordships. They have the potential of making a significant contribution to the more efficient enforcement of parking controls throughout London. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

I referred to these two amendments earlier when I suggested an extension of similar provisions into car parking. They are greatly to be commended and I congratulate the Minister and his department on putting together these two amendments because it is not an easy task to draft amendments like these.

I believe that they will greatly assist the local authorities in carrying out their tasks. It is to be welcomed that people will not face criminal charges but will be penalised to an extent that they will be dissuaded from parking in the wrong place in the future. I commend these amendments.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I join in welcoming these very important amendments. It is good that at this stage of the Bill they are being introduced. I believe that I detect my noble friend's own knowledge of the Bill and his concern for it in securing that the department has moved so sensibly in this direction.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. My noble friend has given me credit when perhaps he should not have done. These amendments were promised in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. I am fulfilling his promise but, nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 161: After Clause 68, insert the following new clause:

Application of provisions in relation to special parking areas

(".—(1) This section applies in relation to any vehicle which is stationary in a special parking area (but which is not in a designated parking place) in circumstances in which an offence would have been committed with respect to the vehicle but for section (Special parking areas) (3) above.

(2) A penalty charge shall be payable with respect to the vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle.

(3) Section 60 of, and Schedule 5 to, this Act shall apply in relation to penalty charges payable by virtue of subsection (2) above, but subject to such modifications (if any) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make in the order designating the special parking area in question.

(4) Where a parking attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle by virtue of subsection (2) above, he or another person acting under his direction may fix an immobilisation device to the vehicle.

(5) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 63 of this Act shall apply in relation to a device fixed to a vehicle under subsection (4) above, but subject to such modifications (if any) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make in the order designating the special parking area in question.

(6) An order under section (Special parking areas) designating a special parking area may make such modifications of any provision of, or amended by, this Part of this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of the provisions of section (Special parking areas) or this section or of the order.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 69 agreed to.

Clause 70 [Financial provisions]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 161A: Page 61, line 38, leave out from ("reimbursing") to ("Act") (line 40) and insert ("all reasonable costs incurred by any London authority under sections 48 to 56 of this Act, and deemed by the Director to be essential to the operation of the priority route network.").

The noble Lord said: The present powers of the director enable him to direct the detailed design of priority routes and to specify what needs to be included. However, it must be remembered that, apart from on trunk roads, the scheme must be paid for by the boroughs. Clause 70 makes provision for the director to pay boroughs' costs in whole or in part. That leaves open the option for the director to insist on expenditure but not have an obligation to pay for it. That could leave boroughs in the equivocal position of having to fund a scheme at the expense of other committed expenditure or otherwise suffer the penalties specified in Clauses 55 and 56. It must be recognised that that would not only be unfair but would be contrary to the principles of natural justice.

This matter was raised during the passage of the Bill in another place with an amendment which merely required the director to pay all the costs of implementing a priority route scheme. The Government resisted that approach on the basis that boroughs could attempt to gold-plate a scheme and that many items of expenditure could be on local roads, which would not be strictly necessary for the operation of the scheme.

This amendment specifically addresses that point. It provides that the director shall pay all the costs for measures which he deems necessary for the operation of the scheme. Therefore, it would be open to him to fund extra provisions if necessary. Having addressed that point, I hope that the Government will view this amendment sympathetically. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment. I have noted that it seeks to address the points raised in the debate in Committee in the other place. I confirm that I shall seriously consider whether I can bring forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I am obliged to the Minister for being so forthcoming. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71 agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments in relation to London]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 162: Page 92, line 35, at end insert:

("The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974(c. xxiv)

. In section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (parking on footways etc) in subsection (12) (b) for the words "under section 84" there shall be substituted the words "made by virtue of section 84(1) (a)".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 162, 163 and 164 with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 163 and 164: Page 93, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("(provisions"), in line 18, and insert ("In section 7 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984"). Page 93, line 21, at end insert: (". In that Act, after section 13 there shall be inserted—

"Temporary suspension Temporary suspension of provisions under s. 6 or 9 orders.

13A.—(1) The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Commissioner of Police for the City of London may temporarily suspend the operation of any provision of an order made under section 6 or 9 of this Act so far as that provision relates to any road or part of a road in Greater London which is within his area, in order to prevent or mitigate congestion or obstruction of traffic, or danger to or from traffic in consequence of extraordinary circumstances.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the period of suspension under subsection (1) above shall not continue for more than 7 days.

(3) If the Secretary of State gives his consent to the period of suspension being continued for more than 7 days, the suspension shall continue until the end of such period as may be specified by the Secretary of State in giving his consent." ").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 165: Page 93, line 22, leave out ("In") and insert ("(1)").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I move Amendment No. 165 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 166 and 167. My noble friend tells me that these amendments will give a local authority a greater degree of freedom to use any surplus funds in the parking places reserve account.

That account is a special account in which a local authority must keep any surplus made from its on-street parking operations. That money can be spent only on providing new parking facilities or other transport or highway improvements. At present, expenditure on routine highway matters, principally maintenance, cannot be drawn from that account.

I understand that the City of Westminster's geographical position means that it makes a surplus on its parking operations. It is a considerable handicap that money raised from one transport activity can be ploughed back only into a limited range of highway or transport related projects. I suspect that that may be the case also with other inner city authorities.

In particular, Westminster seeks the power to apply the funds from that account to all activities authorised by the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That would allow those funds to be spent on new stretches of road, maintenance and works in connection with traffic management orders as well as on improvements. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, moved the amendment on behalf of his noble friend Lady Gardner. He said that it would give greater freedom to an authority to use the surplus fund in its parking account. I am all in favour of an authority having greater freedom to use moneys under certain circumstances. However, he explained how the money could be used at present. Any money in the reserve accounts may be spent on any highway scheme including road maintenance. He emphasised also that parking reserve account money must be spent, first, on parking measures. If no further expenditure on parking is considered either desirable or essential, then the money may be spent on improving highways or on improvements to public transport.

Some boroughs—the noble Lord mentioned Westminster—possess large parking reserves due to income from on-street parking facilities being higher than expenditure. For that reason I can understand such authorities welcoming this type of amendment which enables them to spend money currently locked up. But there is a worry. Some boroughs are in that position and a blanket provision such as that contained in the amendment would place the parking account under great pressure. It may mean that enforcement is not given sufficient expenditure priority.

We regard the question of enforcement as a priority in using a surplus in the parking reserve account. Therefore the amendment could be supported only if it gave the general provision to spend money on highway matters as the lowest priority. For that reason we could not accept the amendment in its present form. If the Government like the principle and are able to table an amendment which would make clear that the first priority must be enforcement and that expenditure on highways matters would be given a low priority, we would support it.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The Government have some 5ympathy with the suggestion that local authorities should be able to use surpluses on their parking revenue accounts for routine highway maintenance or traffic congestion measures provided that there is no need for further parking provision to be made in their area. Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 alrady allows them to use such surpluses for road improvements within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980 but that does not extend to maintenance.

As the Committee will be aware, there is to be a comprehensive review of local government structures and functions, and restrictions on the further use of surplus parking revenues will be one of the topics to be considered in that review. I believe that that review would be a better vehicle for considering changes in the purposes to which surpluses from local authority accounts can be applied. For those reasons I cannot support the amendment.

Lord Swinfen

I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and also to my noble friend. I shall draw both speeches to the attention of my noble friend Lady Gardner, who will make up her mind what she will do with these amendments at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]

Lord Cavendish of Furness: moved Amendment No. 168: Page 93, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 94 and insert: ("7. For paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 (designation of routes in London) there shall be substituted— 5.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the movement of traffic in Greater London, the Secretary of State may by order designate a road in that area.

(2) Before doing so, he shall consult—

1. (a) the council of the London borough in which the road is;
2. (b) the council of any other London borough or of any county where there is a road which he considers is likely to be affected by the designation; and
3. (c) such other persons (if any) as he considers it appropriate to consult.

(3) No council of a London borough shall exercise any power under the Highways Act 1980 or the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect, a designated road unless the requirements of sub-paragraph (4) below have been satisfied.

(4) The requirements are that—

1. (a) the council concerned has given notice to the Director, in such manner as he may require, of its proposal to exercise the power in the way in question; and
2. (b) either—
1. (i) the Director has approved the proposal; or
2. (ii) the period of one month beginning with the date on which he received notice of the proposal has expired without his having objected to it.

(5) The Secretary of State may by an instrument in writing exclude any power from the application of this paragraph to the extent specified in the instrument.

(6) Any such instrument may, in particular, exclude a power as respects—

1. (a) all or any of the London boroughs;
2. (b) all or any of the designated roads; or
3. (c) the exercise of the power in such manner or circumstances as may be specified in the instrument.

(7) This paragraph does not apply to the exercise of a power under section 14 or sections 32 to 38 of the 1984 Act in relation to a road which is not a designated road.

(8) If the council of a London borough exercises any power in contravention of this paragraph, the Director may take such steps as he considers appropriate to reverse or modify the effect of the exercise of that power.

(9) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the Director in taking any steps under sub-paragraph (7) shall be recoverable by him from the council as a civil debt.

(10) In this paragraph— designated road" means a road designated under this paragraph; and Director" means the Traffic Director for London." ").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 105. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 [Interpretation of Part II]:

[Amendments Nos. 168A and 168B not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 169: Page 62, line 24, leave out from ("attendant"") to ("section"), in line 25 and insert ("has the same meaning as in").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 169 was spoken to with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 170: Page 63, line 15, at end insert: ("() For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the provisions in sections 44 to 56 of Part II shall not apply to, and shall not be extended to, areas beyond London.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 170 is a curious amendment for which I take no pride of ownership. It is a probing amendment to allay worries in certain metropolitan areas outside London that the Government could by order under the statutory instruments provided in the Bill introduce similar schemes in other areas without resorting to primary legislation. I am sure that the Government will be able to give the assurance without any difficulty. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

In his amendment the noble Lord uses the word "London". He may recall that on an earlier amendment he used the words "Greater London". I should like to know whether he makes any distinction between the two or simply uses one expression or the other as they come into his head.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I shall allow the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to respond to my noble friend's point.

I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. The Government have no intention, nor do they have power within the Bill, to extend to other areas those clauses listed in his amendment.

It would be wrong to accept the amendment because it seeks to bind future Parliaments on legislation that they may or may not wish to introduce. I readily understand that if Parliament proposed to extend the legislation to other areas its first action would presumably be to wipe out the noble Lord's provision. I think that that answers his point.

Lord Tordoff

I am grateful to the Minister. As I said at the beginning, I have no great pride of ownership. In dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will know that we receive advice from a number of sources. My earlier amendments tended to come from people living within Greater London. I suspect that this has come from my old native heath in the North West, where London is regarded as anything south of Birmingham. The differences between London and Greater London are niceties not observed by the people of Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the reassurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, as I am sure they will be. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74 [Commencement].

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 171: Pae 63, line 24, leave out from ("and") to ("in") in line 25.

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 171 is designed to provide greater flexibility for commencement of the provisions in Part I of the Bill. It extends the provision that has already been made for Part II of the Bill which would allow different provisions to be made in relation to commencement in different areas. I believe it would be prudent to take a similar power for Part I. While it is our intention to commence the majority of the measures in Part I at the same time throughout Great Britain, there may be particular instances where, for example, different commencement dates might be desirable in Scotland and in England and Wales. I hope the Committee will accept that this is a sensible provision. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Until the Minister tabled the amendment and gave us his explanation I was having nightmares that this situation was not being addressed. He has put my mind at ease. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for having done so.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 75 to 77 agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Repeals]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 172:

Page 96, line 9, column 3, at beginning insert:

("In section 17(2), the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b).").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 172 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 173 to 179:

Page 96, line 12, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 85(1) the words "the prescribed". In section 85(2) (a) the words "the prescribed".").

Page 96, line 12, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 99(2), paragraph (c) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.").

Page 96, line 20, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 105(3) (b) the words "under section 49(4) of this Act."").

Page 96, line 30, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 13, in paragraph 40, the words "and for" onwards.").

Page 96, leave out lines 31 to 33.

Page 96, line 44, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 45.

Page 96, line 45, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 41(3) (b) and (c).")

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. With the leave of the Committee I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.