HL Deb 02 February 2005 vol 669 cc341-52

9.37 p.m.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

So what is wrong with the way that things are? What is wrong is that, when this Bill received its First Reading in this House, there was a rumble of agreement that it should be so. The rumbling has gone on in this House, in the media and in all the letters and correspondence that I receive, and it must be clear to everyone that there is widespread resentment among the public—not at the regulations but at the way they are being enforced.

What is happening is not neighbourly. It is not a contribution to our happiness; it is a detriment to our happiness. That is not what the regulations were intended and designed for in the first place. They were put in place to make streets better places for all of us: to improve the flow of traffic; to make life better for pedestrians; and to make it possible for people to park outside their houses in an organised way. The intention behind the regulations was to improve our lives. Clearly, those of us who chose to contravene the rules would find ourselves being fined or otherwise chased up, but the net balance should have been positive. However, we now find that the net balance is substantially negative.

At the moment, we are facing not so much a system of properly enforced rules and regulations, with which we all agree, but a collection of licensed highwaymen who are roaming our streets and are intent on robbing us at every opportunity. We should not allow that to continue. It is not good for all kinds of reasons. It is not good for the wardens, who are perfectly decent fellows. I try to make a practice of chatting to the ones around where I live. I happen to have a resident's parking permit and so do not get into trouble with them too often. They are perfectly nice people and they are extremely badly paid. But they suffer a great deal of abuse, and I am not surprised. They are being told to behave aggressively and unreasonably. It is not the way that any of us would wish to see rules enforced.

That sort of enforcement brings the local authority into disrepute, too. It builds up a tension and unhappiness between us and those we have put in place to rule us. That is not as it should be. The local authority should be our friend and servant rather than an oppressor. If we have that sort of relationship with local government it will spread to the way that we regard the police, government and other elements of authority. Lawbreaking and law avoidance will become something of which we all approve. We all wish to see it done because we are not happy with the way that the law is being enforced. That is not healthy for society.

Going about one's ordinary business in the streets becomes a stressful experience. It becomes an added burden in your life if you cannot, in a quiet moment, pop in to see if Mrs Brown at No. 42 is doing okay as you pass her door because the traffic warden will not allow you 30 seconds in that residents' parking bay. You cannot pop into the local shop and buy a newspaper as you pass by because the traffic warden is sitting behind a tree waiting for people to do just that—and popping out and nabbing them when they do. This is absolutely not the way these rules should be enforced. They were not intended to do this.

Looking at the studies that have been done on fixed penalty systems, principally by Fellows' Associates, it is clear that, in order to work, these systems have to be enforced in a way that has the consent of those on whom they are being enforced and that they have to be fundamentally fair. Otherwise they fall into disrepute and we will end up not being content to use them at all.

The provisions in the Bill are intended to tackle those evils. The first one is the system of payment by results for wardens and, more specifically, for those who employ wardens. We all know that that kind of large financial incentive corrupts. That is why your Lordships' House goes to such lengths to avoid such corruption. We do not allow ourselves to be swayed in debate, and in our activities in this House, by financial incentive. Of course financial incentive bites. Of course if you give a company an incentive to issue more tickets, it will issue more tickets. It receives no benefit from letting someone off when it is unreasonable to give him a ticket. It is out to produce as many tickets as possible.

For many councils, tickets have become an enormous revenue earner. I think that my noble friend's council had an income of more than £30 million last year from this part of its activities. I do not find that difficult. I have no objection to councils raising money in this way, but if they are going to raise money in this way, they must do so fairly. They must do so in a way that carries people's consent with it. They must not do it by some form of licensed robbery. There must be a proper relationship between the public and the traffic warden.

The police understand that. If you are trundling along through a city street at 31 miles an hour, the police may stop you, but they will not fine you. They will recognise that you were exceeding the limit, but not exceeding it by so much that it was a crime. They allow a bit of leeway. If you have done something that was silly but not actually dangerous, they will stop you and talk to you. They will not necessarily book you. There is a human relationship there. That increases your respect for the police and your willingness to co-operate with them. When you do get done, you accept that it is a fair cop. That just does not exist with traffic wardens. They have become absolutely predatory.

The financial incentive has clearly corrupted the way that the system operates. It was reasonable to give it a try, but it has not worked. We must get away from the pressure on companies to perform in a way that we do not want. After all, what these regulations should be about is improving traffic flow and the state of the streets for users. But that is not properly measured by the number of tickets issued. What happens round us is that the wardens target residential streets in the middle of the day because that is when they can be fairly sure that that is when people are nipping in and around and doing odd errands and can be caught. Where they do not target and you never find them is at the box junction outside the police station—because of course the police go out in their cars by the back door and never see what is going on outside the front. They are never there in the morning. The place is absolutely stuffed up. People are always stopped on the box junction because they have not given other road users consideration, but the wardens are not there. They are out in the streets targeting the residents. It is absolutely misery making.

If we are going to have objectives for these companies, let them at least be the objectives that we want to achieve, which ought to be, for most councils, to make life better for their citizens. You cannot translate that into issuing a certain number of tickets or doing a certain number of tow-aways. That is even more ridiculous. Someone who parks in a relatively empty street but against parking regulations can find himself towed away after being just 10 minutes over time on a meter. What possible justification is there for that sort of behaviour? There should be a reasonable fine. But, to my mind, it is entirely objectionable to increase that to 250 quid just because you have a revenue objective.

The practice of saying that the fine is £100, but it will be reduced to £50 if you pay within 14 days also can lead to corruption. Letters have been sent to me—including one from Kensington and Chelsea, I am sad to say—that say, "You can pay the £50 now. But if you appeal and lose it will be 100 quid". So people are being threatened with doubled fines if they appeal. I find that entirely unsatisfactory. People are being bludgeoned into paying things which they feel have been unfairly imposed on them.

The appeal rates are extraordinary. In some councils, 20 to 30 per cent of tickets are torn up. That level of unfairness is generated by quite unreasonable pressures on traffic wardens.

So, other than doing away with financial incentives, I would want to make sure that traffic wardens behaved in a neighbourly way and a way that we would wish to see these rules enforced. In other words, they should allow people some grace where there is an opportunity to do so—so that if you were 10 minutes late in getting back to your car, you would probably not find a ticket on it; so that there would not be a case of the warden having noticed you earlier and watched and, as the clock ticked past the minute, rushing in to stick a ticket on; and so that they would not he hanging round in streets where there is no great traffic problem, picking on people who are stopping for a moment outside the shop.

I remember a campaign in Brixton where there were parking bays outside the post office. Wardens would stick hoods that said "Parking forbidden in this bay" on the meters, hide round the corner, catch those who parked there as they dropped into the post office to post their letters, and then take the hoods off again and go away. What kind of justice is that? It is merely a revenue-raising operation and it is entirely unjustified.

What we need is a system where these regulations are enforced in a way which benefits and is recognised as fair by us all. If Kensington and Chelsea makes 30 million quid out of it, well and good, but let us, for goodness' sake, do it in a way that we are happy with.

So I hope that through the Bill we may reduce discontent, increase equity and see an end to most of the endless stories in the newspapers of people who have been driven to their wits' end by the bad behaviour of traffic wardens. Beyond anything else, we owe it to those servants of the people—the traffic wardens—that they should be better regarded. I beg to move.

Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas.)

9.49 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I added my name to the list of speakers in the Government Whips' Office yesterday afternoon, in what I hope was legible lettering, but for some reason my name does not appear on today's list. I hope, therefore, that the House will bear with me for five minutes or so.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing so elegantly and with such impeccable logic this worthwhile and, in principle, highly desirable Bill; and commiserate with him on having to do so after seven hours of debate on topics of major importance, when most people want only to get home.

I shall start with Clause 3, since, if the principle of that clause is agreed to, Clauses 1 and 2 may not be so essential, at least in their present form. We have been here before. A little under 14 years ago, I moved an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill, which read: Whether employed directly by a local authority or otherwise, parking attendants shall not be remunerated on any basis which relates remuneration to the number of penalty charge notices issued".—[Official Report, 24/6/91; col. 423.] The amendment received unqualified support from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front and Back Benches. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, added his name to the amendment. as did my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth, while the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke up for it most powerfully. It was also supported by the Church, in the shape of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, and by the judiciary, in the shape of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and Lord Wilberforce, as well as by many Conservatives who defied their party's Whip. Notable among those noble Lords still with us was the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who gave valuable support.

We could not quite prevail against the large in-built Conservative majority of those days, so we lost, but by only seven votes. However, that was not the end of the story. Sixteen months later, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in a Starred Question, asked the 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 at that time, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said: 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".—[Official Report, 21/10/92: col. 749.] The reply of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was slightly ambiguous in that the assurance related only to "police traffic wardens". Nevertheless, the exchanges that followed made it clear that almost the entire House, irrespective of party, was strongly against "payment by results", with Lord Grimond, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, from the Liberal Democrat Back Benches, and, once again, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, from the Labour Benches, particularly forceful in the matter.

I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, whether her party is just as opposed to parking attendants being paid by results as they were 12, 13 or 14 years ago. If so—there is no reason to suppose that they have changed their mind; there is no reason for them to do so—will she encourage her colleagues to give the Bill a fair wind? I also ask the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, whether the Liberal Democrats have changed their mind. Again, there is no reason for them to do so, and I hope that he will support the Bill just as much as I do.

The Bill probably needs tweaking in Committee. For example, Clause 3 may need to be expanded to provide that no employee may be disciplined, downgraded or dismissed for failing to issue a minimum number of parking tickets in a day or a week. The present wording might allow that one to escape.

Clause 1(2)(c) is just a little ambitious. Metered parking now costs £4 an hour in the West End of London, so a 10-minute period of grace would cost the local authority around 67 pence. A three-minute period, at a notional cost of 20 pence, would be more realistic.

If there were less pressure on wardens to issue tickets come what may, the petty unfairnesses that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remedy would, in large measure, if not totally, resolve themselves. I also wonder whether paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(2) would not allow motorists to park on yellow lines provided they were not causing—

Baroness Andrews

My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I am sorry that he was left off the official list. Bearing in mind the conventions of the House, we would be grateful if he could draw his remarks to a swift conclusion.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I was about to do so. Allowing motorists to park on yellow lines as long as they are not causing any inconvenience or danger to other road users is undoubtedly an attractive idea, but surely one that is not likely to get far. All that is for a later stage. Meanwhile, I wish the Bill every success.

9.55 p.m.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on presenting this short Bill. I always enjoy taking part in discussions on legislation by which I am unlikely to be afflicted. The Bill is likely to twang the heart strings of many a motorist and perhaps many a traffic warden.

One of the joys of the politics of transport is that there is no one who does not have personal experience of transport and travel and hence have a view. 1 confirm that we have a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord's Bill. We are also amused to hear a noble Lord from the Conservative Benches complain about the product of the privatisation, outsourcing and incentivisation of traffic wardens and parking attendants. There is no doubt that parking charges can be a good earner for the local authorities.

The noble Lord may have picked the day deliberately. I notice that the Evening Standard has today published the London boroughs' revenue from parking in 2002–03. It states: as boroughs' enforcement profits soar…£300m: what we pay in parking fines every year". The figures demonstrate that substantial sums can be collected in surplus. I noted, among others, that Barnet had collected £3 million and Camden £13 million—this is the surplus, over and above their operating costs. Westminster had collected £33 million; Hammersmith and Fulham, £9 million; Islington, £3 million; Kensington and Chelsea, £16 million; Richmond, £3 million; and Wandsworth, £6 million. I noticed that two boroughs were reported as having made a loss.

Barking made a £0.5 million loss, and Newham made a £100,000 loss. Public sector managers certainly have a duty to break even, but there is a substantial risk, as has been mentioned, that motorists may be alienated—to put it mildly—while grudgingly applauding the generous "break-even plus" of their local authority. There are reports and anecdotes about highly incentivised wardens giving out tickets for, for example, a visitor's permit being on the wrong side of the car, for a disabled badge being upside down and for a wheel being marginally on the pavement. Clearly, this is the proverbial situation of observing the letter of the law and losing sight of the spirit of the law.

This short Bill is very tempting. It might help to take anger out of traffic management. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

9.58 p.m.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, my contribution to the Bill will be limited. First, it is not in my portfolio. I am helpfully sitting here because it is rather late. I also feel an attack coming on from behind about Kensington and Chelsea.

Before I take part in the Committee stage, as I surely will, I shall need to check all the facts. I am certain that the borough of Kensington and Chelsea does not make £30 million. I am equally certain that it has contracts that do not allow for payment by results. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has been so incensed by this. I must ask him who, why, when and where. I am sure that his Bill will have a later stage.

I have just one point to make, which concerns Clause 3(a). I doubt whether any contractor or organisation would entitle a payment to be made directly to, a traffic warden or parking attendant". Whatever happens, that will probably have to be amended. I shall look forward to the further sessions on this matter.

10 p.m.

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has introduced his Bill for Second Reading in a most informative, entertaining and measured manner. It concerns a group of men and women who are often vilified in the media, but who nevertheless do an important job—I am not talking about ourselves—which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has acknowledged. Often they do it in difficult circumstances and sometimes at the risk of physical harm.

We should remember that the purpose of parking attendants and traffic wardens is not to punish motorists, but to supervise parking places and traffic regulations, and to ensure compliance with the traffic laws. They play an essential part in the management of traffic, helping to keep the roads safe and preventing congestion. Enforcement ensures that traffic regulations are not abused, otherwise there could be chaos on the streets. It is especially important as pressures on road space and competition for kerb space increase. Noble Lords will know that with more than 25 million cars on the road, you cannot have a parking free-for-all.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has spoken eloquently in commending his Bill. However, I am afraid that the Government are unable to support it. That is not because we disagree with the principles behind the Bill or the idea of guidance in relation to the conduct of parking operatives—for we do not. We are unable to support the Bill simply because it is unnecessary: the Government have already taken steps to address the question of guidance on parking enforcement, and thereby on the conduct of parking attendants.

The noble Lord will recall that the Traffic Management Act gained Royal Assent in July 2004. Part 6 of the Act provides for a single framework for civil traffic enforcement that brings together, in a consistent way, parking, bus lane and moving traffic enforcement by local authorities. The Act will also introduce new safeguards to protect motorists from unreasonable enforcement.

During the passage of the Act there was much debate on certain enforcement practices, which were seen as unfair and unreasonable. As a result, Section 87 was inserted into the Act. That permits the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions, which includes parking enforcement. In exercising those functions, a local authority must have regard to the guidance. So, for the first time, the guidance will be placed on a statutory basis.

During 2005 we will draw up that guidance, alongside the regulations needed to implement Part 6 of the Act, following consultation with all interested organisations. Work on the guidance, which will include public consultation, will continue throughout 2005. We hope to complete that by the end of this year. It is too early to say precisely what it will contain. That will depend, to some extent, on what comes to light during the consultation process. However, as the guidance will deal with matters of good enforcement practice, I would be very surprised if it did not have something critical to say about parking attendants being paid according to the number of penalty charge notices issued, or any similar incentive. I am looking in particular at the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who directed his question on this point to me.

We believe that such incentives are outside the spirit of legislation and we have already taken action on this. The Department for Transport has recently worked with the British Parking Association and others to produce a model contract which is designed for local authorities that appoint contractors to manage their on-street parking. One of the aims of the new contract is to encourage best practice by ensuring that performance is measured largely in terms of compliance with the regulations and of keeping the roads free from congestion, which is one of the primary aims of enforcing regulations, rather than the number of penalty charge notices issued or revenue generated. The contract has been available since November 2004 for licensed use from the British Parking Association.

I note that the Bill covers both traffic wardens who are appointed by the police authority and parking attendants who are appointed by a local traffic authority. While the Traffic Management Act guidance will not apply to traffic wardens, their role in parking enforcement will diminish as the take-up of decriminalised parking enforcement by local authorities continues apace and police traffic wardens are replaced. Decriminalised enforcement by parking attendants, for which the statutory guidance will apply, will become increasingly the norm. So while we agree with the idea of guidance for parking operatives, and on which we are taking action, the Bill contains a number of specific provisions with which we cannot agree and which serve to strengthen our opposition.

Clause 1 would require that a fixed penalty notice cannot be served unless a vehicle is causing. significant inconvenience to other road users…a danger to other road users, including pedestrians". In passing I note that the Bill would need to be amended with the inclusion of the term "penalty charge notice" to cover civil enforcement by parking attendants. As drafted, it would have no effect at all on local authority parking attendants.

However, whichever way the clause is drafted, we cannot agree with it. Requiring the subjective judgment of whether an illegally parked vehicle is causing "significant inconvenience" will impact adversely on the effectiveness of traffic enforcement. Many motorists could claim that, while their parked vehicle was an inconvenience, it was not a significant inconvenience. The argument might even be applied when a vehicle is parked on yellow lines. This could create great problems. Where a warden or attendant could not be certain that the level of inconvenience was significant, possibly in many cases they would not issue a penalty and the parking contravention would go unpunished. And with more opportunity to debate whether a contravention has taken place, the independent parking adjudicators at the magistrates' courts would see a substantial increase in cases that they had to deal with.

Exactly the same sort of uncertainty would be introduced in relation to "danger to other road users". Arguments would arise inevitably over whether a particular parked vehicle constitutes a danger. The current enforcement system is more objective and therefore easier to understand for most motorists and enforcement officers. Parking prohibitions, restrictions and conditions are set out in traffic orders. They are then indicated to motorists by means of signs and lines so that they are clear where and when they should or should not park. It is then possible to illustrate these requirements in publications like the Highway Code which, of course, every motorist should read and follow.

Motorists are aware that if they park on yellow lines during a prohibited time, they are committing a contravention and should not do so if they want to avoid a fine. We wish to retain this clarity for both motorists and enforcement officers. The proposal in the Bill would only cloud that clarity.

Let us consider the 10-minute rule. Clause 1 of the Bill would also require that a fixed penalty notice could not be issued until 10 minutes after the contravention had taken place. Clearly, an easily recognisable time at which an over-staying contravention occurs is required, but one already exists—that is, the time that has been paid for at the meter and which should be clearly fixed in the mind of the motorist. Once that time has expired a contravention has occurred and a valid penalty charge could, and should, be issued.

The provision would simply legitimise a parking contravention and award the driver with 10 free minutes' parking. In areas of high demand for parking, this practice would become common and the amount of free parking time would be substantial. Time limits on parking in high demand areas ensure a turnover of spaces so that a motorist has a reasonable chance of finding a space. This proposal would reduce turnover of parking spaces which, in turn, would reduce people's access to parking.

We do not wish to compromise in any way the incentive for drivers to return to their parked vehicle at the correct time and to use the parking space properly.

In conclusion, for these reasons the Government are unable to support the Bill. This does not mean that we are unmindful of the main thrust of the Bill—that of guidance for parking officers so that parking enforcement is carried out in a fair and reasonable manner—we are not. I trust the noble Lord will accept that we are taking action to meet the objectives behind his Bill by other means.

10.12 p.m.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I am encouraged by what the noble Baroness has said, which I thought, as a whole, was very fair. Clearly, if she is proceeding that wise, with that mind, and is intent on producing a set of regulations that embody the kind of principles she has outlined, there is something to hope for.

I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will perhaps be able to express similar opinions because I very much hope that she will be a member of the Government at the end of 2005 and that we may see these proposals carried forward. However, I am left in some doubt about whether we take the part of the citizen in these matters or whether we take the part of the revenue-raising authorities. I very much hope that it is that of the citizen. Perhaps when my noble friend has a chance to talk to someone who does speak for transport, he or she will be able to tell me.

Given that the Government are doing something constructive, and given that there is a real coincidence of wishes about what should happen, it is probably fairest to let it be and see how things work out, provided we have the chance to do so.

I understand the Minister's criticisms of the particular clauses in the Bill. You have to put something in a Bill such as this to illustrate what you are talking about; otherwise no one knows what the Bill is intended to do. One would hope that, ultimately, matters such as these would be in a code or in guidance so that they could be dealt with flexibly. That is the basis on which the police enforce a 30 mile-an-hour speed limit. It is a clear limit but you do not expect them to be there timing you to the millisecond; you expect to be caught good and proper.

As to the provision for 10 minutes over on a meter, this is merely a marketing device. I am surprised that the Minister does not recognise this kind of thing. Offering a free 10 minutes merely reduces people's anger at being caught; it does not necessarily diminish a council's ability to raise revenue or to maintain turnover. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right that three free minutes would solve the problem. If you take that attitude, you achieve the same thing, but with people's consent. You build the three minutes into the pricing and when people are caught, they know that they are late, good and proper. This can also be approached the other way, and I hope that the guidance will tell traffic wardens that they are not expected to hang around waiting for the second that someone's parking expires. They can issue a ticket at that moment, but they are not to make a practice of trying to achieve that.

We are looking for a set of laws, a set of regulations, enforced in the way that the police have learnt to enforce their laws and those for which they exercise responsibility. If we can achieve that, we will have achieved a great deal.

Traffic wardens have a great deal to offer beyond just sticking tickets on cars. They are the most visible presence of the enforcement of regulations on our streets. I have lived in the borough of Wandsworth for seven years, and I cannot recall when I last saw a policeman on foot. I see them racing up and down in cars all the time. Traffic wardens are part of making sure that our neighbourhood is, in the daytime at least, safe and patrolled and properly regulated. They ought to be an appreciated and valued part of our community, and I would really like to see that happen. But for now, although I have moved that the Bill be read a second time, I do not expect that we shall see very much more of it.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes past ten o'clock.