Clause 69 - Contraventions subject to civil enforcement
Traffic Management Bill
11:00 am
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
Clause 69 deals with contraventions subject to civil enforcement. Amendment Nos. 136 to 138 and the consequential amendments Nos. 139 to 141 to schedule 7 would leave out references to bus lane, London lorry ban and moving traffic contraventions. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) will speak to amendment No. 151 with which we have a lot of sympathy, having read the briefing from the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety.
Bus lane enforcement in London is rather hit and miss at the moment. We are told that there has been a substantial increase in the number of bus lane contraventions that are now the subject of fixed penalty notices. The clause would extend that across the country, but we should have regard for what is happening in practice. A car that momentarily occupies an empty bus lane becomes the subject of civil enforcement. If vehicles impede the progress of buses along bus lanes, that is one thing, but a vehicle that momentarily enters a bus lane that is otherwise empty does not hinder the flow of traffic but improves it, which is what the Bill is, or should be, about.
Bus lane enforcement and enforcement of other moving traffic contraventions have been the subject of representations by the Metropolitan police. I am sure that other members of the Committee received the briefing note that I received. It has caused me concern. It states that
''the newly formed MPS Transport Operational Command Unit (TOCU), funded by the Mayor under a Special Services Agreement (SSA)'',
as part of its core business, is
''to ensure the efficient movement of buses on agreed routes/locations and assist in the control of congestion at agreed priority locations . . . When the Bill was first drafted the TOCU SSA was still being negotiated, therefore the implications of the Bill on their business was not considered. The TOCU is also unique in that it employs Traffic Police Community Support Officers (combined Traffic Wardens and PCSOs) able to deal with disorder and Traffic offences.''
Since the establishment of the new operational command unit, there has been much more Metropolitan police enforcement of prohibited left and right and turns: there was enforcement of 3,922 instances in 2002; in 2003, that had risen to 6,221. At the same time, contraventions of box junctions had declined from 244 to 169.
The Met says that it wishes to deal with the problem of motorists who are breaking not only the motoring law but other laws as well, and it is concerned that dual enforcement will not be possible. I accept the Minister's arguments on the last group of amendments that to have motorists in double jeopardy is the wrong solution. If it is wrong, the preferable course, in the light of the experience of the Metropolitan police, is for them to retain enforcement responsibility for moving traffic offences, which is the subject of my amendment.
I quote again from the briefing, which I hope the Minister takes seriously. It states:
''It is therefore necessary for the police to have the ability to address poor or bad driving whenever it occurs.
The TOCU and the Traffic OCU would prefer to have the option of dual enforcement''—
as I said, I do not believe that that is appropriate—
''as already occurs for parking in the controlled areas of a pedestrian crossing:- offending vehicles may be issued with a penalty charge by parking attendant or a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) by the police service.''
The Met wants dual enforcement, but, if that is not possible, it should have sole responsibility for enforcement of moving traffic offences. The briefing draws attention to the disparity in the penalties that are available for criminal enforcement, for which the police are responsible, and civil enforcement. It states that
''the civil penalty is substantially more than the criminal Fixed Penalty. A sum of £80 or £100 is being suggested''
for the civil penalty,
''compared with £30 and £60 for endorsable offences, with the civil penalty going to the Local Authority''
rather than the Exchequer.
The Metropolitan police says that it would be able to address the problem of not being able to stop vehicles at box junctions, in bus lanes and for moving traffic offences if the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970 were amended. It would then be able to enforce yellow box junctions and prohibited turns. Why does the Minister think that it is better to pass that function to wholly civilian people instead of transferring it to traffic wardens who, however much
some people may dislike them, at least come under the Metropolitan police code of discipline.
The police are keen to retain that responsibility and do not wish it to be passed over to civilian enforcement. In the light of their powerful submission, I hope that the Minister will accede to our amendments, which will increase public confidence. We know that the police and those trained by them are better able to exercise reasonable discretion in practice and have the power to enforce the wider criminal law, which is so often the subject of contravention by those who offend the traffic regulations.