Clause 71 - Power to require authority to
Traffic Management Bill
3:16 pm
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 142, in
page 42, line 3, leave out 'require' and insert 'invite'.
This is a simple but far-reaching amendment. It would enable local authorities to be invited to set up a civil enforcement penalty regime, but it would not enable the Government to require them so to do. A lot of concern has been expressed about the requirement that local authorities should set up such a regime, even if they do not want to. About 80 local authorities have already engaged in the process, but why should they be compelled to do so? The Select Committee on Transport and the Local Government Association are concerned about that.
The regulatory impact assessment deals with the balance of costs and benefits, stating:
''Given that civil enforcement is designed to be self-financing it is considered that the benefits of compelling authorities to take on such powers outweigh the costs.
However, the burden of civil enforcement may not be self-financing for some local authorities, particularly those in more rural areas, which may incur disproportionate costs if they take over a civil enforcement job from the police. The regulatory impact assessment continues:
''If cost is an issue in any particular case it will be possible for an authority to raise the matter in making its representations to the national authority in response to a formal indication that the issue of a Notice is being contemplated.''
Obviously, they will be able to raise the issue, but if we do not amend the clause, the Government will still be able to compel them to set up a civil enforcement regime.
I believe in local authorities and localism, which is in vogue at the moment, and I wonder whether the Government could accept the amendment in the spirit of localism.