HL Deb 21 October 1992 vol 539 cc749-51

3.5 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will take action with the authorities concerned to prevent traffic wardens from receiving remuneration in proportion to the number of tickets issued for offences in public parking places.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, police traffic wardens are not paid according to the number of tickets they issue, nor is there any intention that they should be. Discussions are continuing as to how traffic parking attendants will be paid.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I conclude that it is the parking attendants who have so far been affected. If the intention is payment by results, should not the higher remuneration, if any, be in inverse proportion to the number of tickets issued as the best result is good parking practice caused by the effectiveness of the work of the attendants and wardens?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the best result would be to make all traffic wardens and parking attendants redundant through people parking properly in the first place.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole House will be grateful to hear there is no question of paying traffic wardens according to the number of people they succeed in arresting? Will the Minister give an undertaking that in no field of law and order is payment determined by the profit motive?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as I said in my original reply, discussions are continuing as to exactly how parking attendants will be paid.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what worries some of us is the people who clamp cars? Those are the people who are apparently paid by results. If that is so, it is a scandal and a disgrace. Moreover, if that is so, what do the Government propose to do about it?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware just how effective wheel clamping has been in helping the speeding up of traffic in London and in proving a deterrent to illegal parking. As I have said, traffic wardens are not paid by results.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, are the wheel dampers paid by results or not?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, so far as I know, a wheel damper is a traffic warden and therefore constitutes an arm of the police. As I understand the situation, such people are not paid by results. However, I shall check the position on that matter as it is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper and I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he may be mistaken in the answer he has given, and that it is the understanding of many noble Lords that clampers are paid by results?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, it certainly would not be the first or indeed the last time that I am mistaken. However, as I have said, I shall look into the issue and write to the noble Lord.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, when the Minister considers this matter, will he take into account the private dampers, too? It is a well-known fact that those people receive bonuses. Does the Minister accept that this whole issue is becoming a farce, certainly in the eyes of the motoring public, when double yellow lines are being removed so that parking meters may be erected? If the yellow lines were essential in the first place to assist the flow of traffic, what is to be gained from removing them and putting in meters? The meters cause another line of obstructive traffic. This issue is quite clearly a means of gathering taxes and is recognised as such by the general public.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord's question goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper. I tried to be helpful earlier, but I shall not try to be helpful now.

Lord Monson

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that if law enforcers—which traffic attendants will effectively be—are given financial incentives to penalise as many members of the general public as possible, it opens the way to every form of abuse?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I read with great care the amendment to the Road Traffic Bill moved by the noble Lord in June 1991. That amendment was not accepted by the House. I understand the noble Lord's point of view; but, as I said, discussions are continuing.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I am delighted to hear that traffic wardens receive no remuneration for extra keenness. However, can the noble Earl assure the House that there is no form of quota comparison in the employment of wardens? In other words, do they have to operate to a certain standard in respect of the number of people they charge?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I do not know the exact answer to that question, but I shall look into the matter.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the Minister's briefing on the issue of the role of dampers and their remuneration leaves something to be desired. Will he give a clear undertaking to the House that he will examine very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had to say? Furthermore, more radically and more importantly, does he realise that the deficiencies of public transport in London are the real issues which have to be tackled when it comes to congestion? He himself has spoken about the need to speed up traffic in London.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, it is good to see the noble Lord back on his feet on transport matters. After yesterday, I thought that he had left the issue behind and found something else to do. With regard to the noble Lord's question, it is well wide of that on the Order Paper.