Clause 36 - Permit regulations
Traffic Management Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)
I do not want the Committee to run away with the notion that the Bill introduces criminality and criminal offences in this area. Much of the clause, not least the paragraph that the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete, is about raising the level of fine for criminal offences, as indicated in schedule 1. That relates back to a range of summary offences in the 1991 Act. We are simply setting out what level of fine—say level 4 or 5, up from level 3—is appropriate. We are not introducing new offences in that respect. If Members look at schedule 1, they will see that it relates to various sections—section 51 all the way through to sections 79, 80, 83 and 92—of the earlier Act. Clearly, there will be some new offences in relation to permits, but the roots of those are in the earlier Act.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that these are important matters, but they should be dealt with in far more detail in the regulations. I understand where he is coming from, but the Bill is not about introducing permit schemes as a revenue-raising exercise. We can rehearse that debate for ever, if he wants, but it is 28 minutes past 5, and if we did that, it would make the pair of us even more unpopular with everyone else in the Room than we are already. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is waving at me, or signalling that he is about to cut his throat—or my throat—but I get the gist.
Although the matters that have been raised are important, the clause deals principally with the increase in penalties for summary offences. Of course, new offences are an element of the clause, because the permits are a new scheme. However, matters of substance should be determined in the regulations—that is what the clause is all about—rather than in the Bill. I take the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch seriously. I am thinking not least of his point about arbitration. If he will allow me, I will consider that issue and see whether we can incorporate some allusion to it in subsequent deliberations.
The permit schemes need some teeth when it comes to offences, which is why we have raised some of the levels and introduced some new offences. I ask that the clause remain intact. It covers an important part of the discretionary permit scheme that authorities might want to introduce.