Clause 69 - Contraventions subject to civil enforcement
Traffic Management Bill

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:

No. 137, in

page 41, leave out line 24.

No. 138, in

page 41, leave out line 25.

No. 151, in

page 41, line 31, at end insert—

'(4A) Regulations under this part of the Act may not extend provision in relation to different descriptions of contraventions to include such contraventions as are likely to cause or contribute to a road traffic accident.'.

No. 139, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out lines 8 to 22.

No. 140, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out lines 23 to 29.

No. 141, in

schedule 7, page 71, leave out from line 30 to end of line 25 on page 73.

Mr Paul Marsden (Shadow Minister, Transport; Shrewsbury and Atcham, Liberal Democrat)

The clause identifies four categories of road traffic contraventions that are to be subjected to civil enforcement. The four that are listed do not seem to include cycling. There is a brief mention in schedule 7, which we will possibly discuss in more detail later. Paragraphs 3(2)(g) and 4(2)(h) both refer to section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in relation to cycle tracks.

The CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, wants to know whether the definition of cycle tracks includes things such as cycle lanes and cyclists' advance stop-line facilities. I am sure that the Committee knows that they are the coloured bits on the road in front of traffic lights. I want to see proper protection for all cyclists, in the same way that we offer protection to other road users. Sometimes cyclists seem to be the Cinderella users of the public transport network. They appear to come bottom of the pile for investment. If we are trying to reduce traffic congestion, cyclists are incredibly environmentally friendly. The more cyclists we have, the greater will be the reduction in both congestion and pollution.

Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire, Conservative)

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a duty on all cyclists to obey the law and that where cyclists start riding on footpaths without due care and attention, they should be prosecuted just the same as a motorist is?

Mr Paul Marsden (Shadow Minister, Transport; Shrewsbury and Atcham, Liberal Democrat)

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Two or three weeks ago I was out with the Shrewsbury police on an evening patrol. I was delighted when they stopped some youngsters who were riding on the pavement. That needs to be picked up. It presents many dangers to pedestrians. Cyclists need to be responsible, just like all other road users. As I said, if we want to reduce congestion we need to get as many people as possible walking and cycling. With the fragmented cycling network in most towns and cities it is a real problem. Cyclists and pedestrians face real dangers and they need protection. Why is a cycling contravention not included in the clause? Surely there can be greater definition of what cycle tracks mean. I hope that the Minister can help.

Mr Hugh Bayley (City of York, Labour)

I apologise to you, Miss Begg, to the Minister and to members of the Committee that I will have to leave early to attend my daughter's school parents evening. I sincerely hope that this will be a short debate and that I will be here long enough to hear the Minister's response. I find myself in the deeply embarrassing position of having to agree with what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) said about cyclists. I fully support civil enforcement of both parking and moving traffic offences in bus lanes and pedestrian areas. It will mean that those areas will be used as intended. I am sorry that the Conservative party seeks to delete civil enforcement from the Bill. There will be less rigorous enforcement if the arrangements are not changed.

It is a good thing that there will be enforcement of both parking and moving traffic offences in bus lanes and pedestrian areas. Enforcement is less clear in relation to cycle lanes, cycle gaps and other on-road provision for cyclists. Subsection (2)(d) refers to moving traffic contraventions and they are listed in part 4 of schedule 7. Why does not the Minister also include in the Bill the civil enforcement of parking offences in cycle lanes and other cyclists' areas of roads? As someone who cycles quite a bit, I believe that it is dangerous when someone parks in a cycle lane to the side of the road, because cyclists are forced to ride out in traffic that may be travelling at a considerable speed. It impedes the traffic, leading to congestion, and deters cyclists from cycling in busy areas. If they, like me, are fortunate enough to have a car as well as bicycle, many will use the car instead. I would like to hear the Minister's response to the idea of broadening the scope of the Bill to deal with parking in cycle lanes.

On moving traffic contraventions, the Minister has kindly provided us with a multicoloured list of traffic signals that are covered by part 4 of schedule 7. In my experience, it is the first time that we have had a colour document in a Standing Committee, and I congratulate the Minister on an impressive innovation.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

Order. I wonder whether the use of colour is in order in such matters, but in this case we will allow it.

Mr Hugh Bayley (City of York, Labour)

I stand corrected. Miss Begg. I will refer to the document as a chromographic list.

The list includes sign No. 953, which designates a route

''for use by buses and pedal cycles only''

but does not include the sign for a route for use by cycles only. I ask the Minister whether the omission is deliberate and whether it could be put right. I do not believe that the criminal law enforcement authorities—the police—have the time or should properly be using it to enforce moving or parking offences in cycle lanes. If the enforcement were civil, there would be more rigorous enforcement of infringements. That would be good for cyclists and the free flow of traffic, because more people would cycle and fewer cyclists would stray out into fast-moving traffic.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I shall speak about part 4 of schedule 7 and the splendid little aide-mémoire that the Minister gave us.

I raise my first point because I started life as a printer. I draw the Minister's attention to the references to ''Motor vehicles prohibited'', which have a diagram reference of 619, and

''Motor vehicles except solo motor cycles prohibited'',

which have a diagram reference of 619.1. I was brought up as a printer to understand that there was a significance in colours being different. One sign has a pale red circle, which I do not recognise, and if the diagrams are being presented as definitive parts of legislation, and will be printed in colour, that colour should be correct. It strikes me that it is not.

My more substantial point refers to ''Box junction markings'', which has a diagram reference of 1043, 1044. The point was made in an earlier debate about using cameras to prove that someone is in a box junction. That is correct up to a point, but brings us back to the issue of reasonable excuse, which we discussed this morning so I will not repeat it. In essence, the issue is similar to one in which I was involved about variable speed limits on the M25. I dealt with the part of the M25 that was in my constituency. Drivers were passing under a gantry where the sign showed that the variable speed limit was 50 mph, but when they came out the other side and activated the cameras, the speed limit had changed to 40 mph. Technically, they were therefore speeding without having known that the speed limit had changed. It took some ingenuity on behalf of the then Government to find a way round the problem, but a solution was found.

The point made this morning about box junctions is that a photograph of somebody in one does not necessarily prove that the driver was at fault. There could have been a sensible space ahead when they moved into the box junction, but somebody or something could have conspired to ensure that the space was then blocked before they got out the other side. A single photograph could not demonstrate that. I am sure that the Minister would not want fixed

penalties, prosecutions or anything else in cases in which the only evidence was a single photograph that proved that what appeared at that moment to be an offence was being committed.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Committee Room this morning when I said that the difference is that speed cameras take a pair of fixed pictures, whereas this would be a moving camera image.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I am grateful for that. I should have said at the outset that when the Committee was discussing this morning when we might sit or not sit and when you might catch your aeroplane this evening, Miss Begg, I was not in the Room, so if that were covered, I apologise. I am grateful for that assurance: otherwise, there is a genuine issue there, like the issue of variable speed cameras.

Mr John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour)

I have a question about paragraph 3(2)(d) of schedule 7, using reference 619 as an example. Can I clarify that this could be used with a single fixed camera as a way of curtailing rat-running in an area?

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Miss Begg. Amendments Nos. 136 to 141 would take bus lane, lorry ban and moving traffic contraventions out of the scope of civil enforcement. Those powers all exist in previous Acts of Parliament: in the London Local Authorities Act 1996, the Transport Act 2000 and the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. These amendments would not delete those powers, but would preserve a situation in which certain powers were available to authorities in London but not elsewhere, despite the fact that authorities throughout the country face many of the same problems in managing road and street networks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) tabled amendment No. 151, which would prevent a traffic contravention that would be

''likely to cause or contribute to''

a road crash from being subject to civil enforcement. He would agree with me that failure to comply with almost any traffic regulation has the potential to cause a crash or infringe road safety. If the intention of the amendment is that such offences be effectively enforced, I believe it is somewhat misguided. The provisions of the Bill are set against a background, of which he is probably aware, of police forces focusing more sharply on tackling other street crimes. That means that they are focusing less on minor traffic offences. However, our aim is to promote road safety and reduce disruption, so it is important that the provisions are effectively enforced. I know that hon. Members have had time to examine the signs with which we wish to improve enforcement, and I am glad that the full technicolour diagrams assisted the Committee, although we shall rap the printers' knuckles for some of them being redder than others—a bit like Labour Members—and we shall get that sorted for future production.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

The explanatory notes read:

''Contraventions which would lead to licence endorsement may not be added to the list of moving traffic contraventions.''

Unless I have missed it, that does not appear in the Bill. If the Minister can tell me that I have missed it, I shall happily shut up and sit down. My concern that the statement in the explanatory notes was not fully translated into the Bill gave rise to my amendment.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I can assure my hon. Friend that it is in the Bill: he should refer to page 73. I am glad for some assistance on that. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised the issue of5 police enforcing various measures. The Metropolitan police had to use the box junction enforcement in 2003 on 169 occasions. Transport for London, in a pilot monitoring scheme in preparation for the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, observed 33 contraventions at four sites in only six hours, which shows that there are many such contraventions. The police are somewhat pressed when it comes to enforcement, which reinforces the case for civil enforcement officers to take some of the load off the police.

The Bill would allow the police and civil enforcement officers to enforce moving offences. That has been decided after consultation on the regulations that were considered the most appropriate. At present, in London if a local authority applies for an order, the police would not be able to enforce it, but regulations under the Bill would allow that to happen. The police or the civil enforcement officers could enforce the provisions outside London. A person could not be fined by both for the same offences, but either could issue a fixed penalty notice for similar, non-endorsable offences listed in paragraph 10 of schedule 7.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

Was not the Minister saying in response to the debate on clause 68 that he was against a dual system running at the same time where a person could suffer a penalty enforced by the police or by a civil enforcement officer?

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

If I appeared to say that, it was not what I intended and the record will show that I did not say it. I said that people should not be able to be fined for the same offence by both. They should not be able to receive a fixed penalty and a penalty from the civil enforcement officer. It must be one or the other. Equally, one or the other in most cases would be able to impose a fine where that is appropriate.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) spoke about bus lanes—he is not in his place but I am sure he will read the Hansard report of the debate—and that is a matter entirely for local authorities. They will set out who could use the bus lanes and at what times. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of shared car use. Hon. Members expressed interest in it and a pilot is being conducted in Leeds, enforced by the police, which takes up a lot of their manpower. To spread such a scheme throughout the rest of the country would be difficult and it would be hard to enforce by using cameras. I am

told that one lady with a baby strapped in the back of her car was stopped three times because neither the camera nor a police officer at the side of the road could easily see the situation.

In Committee and outside it, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has rightly raised cycling matters, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. The mandatory cycle lanes that are bounded by a solid white line, indicated by the cycle lane sign and backed by a traffic regulation order under sections 1, 6 or 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, are enforceable, but I understand that those with the broken line are not. Parking in a mandatory cycle lane is also open to civil enforcement under the Bill; its course is an offence under sections 5, 8 or 11 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman will find the information that he wants in schedule 7, paragraphs 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(b). The offence of parking on a cycle track is also subject to civil enforcement under the Bill, in schedule 7, paragraphs 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(h). In the case of the hon. Gentleman's authority, these will be enforceable offences.

Mr Paul Marsden (Shadow Minister, Transport; Shrewsbury and Atcham, Liberal Democrat)

I remind the Minister that I asked a specific question: what is the definition of cycle tracks in part 1, schedule 7 paragraph 3(2)(g) and 4(2)(h)? Does it include cycle lanes and the advance stop line facilities?

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

The cycle track is separate and has a different definition. It will usually be a designated area for cycling, although it may include pedestrians, whereas a cycle lane usually runs in association with the highway. That was what I was just explaining in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. If the hon. Gentleman wants a further legalistic definition, we can provide him with that for a little light bedside reading.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

Will the Minister confirm that the offence of cycling the wrong way along a one-way street would be covered by the provision? Otherwise, there would seem to be a certain inequity. I speak as someone with an interest in that issue—my wife was mown down by a cyclist travelling the wrong way along a one-way street. I hope that the Minister can confirm that there will be a level playing field in that respect.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

Yes. There is some understandable annoyance in relation to cyclists. It seems to be a particular problem in London, where some cyclists—a minority—seem to think that the usual traffic laws do not apply to them and will, for instance, go through red lights. I have seen some of my colleagues nearly mown down on Bridge street, crossing to Parliament street, by cyclists charging through. Road traffic laws apply to cyclists as they do to everyone else, and I understand that the provisions of the clause would be enforceable in that respect.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but how can there be enforcement? As I understand it, the schedule that we will discuss later says that a cycle cannot be stopped.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

In cases in which cyclists could not be stopped, the offences would have to be taken up by

a police officer. That is an important issue, and I shall look into the minute detail, rather than hurrying through an answer now. More detail would help the Committee in its deliberations. A police officer would be able to stop someone, but the civil enforcement officer might not be able to do so.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative)

On that point, we would all like to see cyclists behaving more safely on the roads. The other evening, when I was travelling in an urban area, I counted 23 cyclists, of whom only six had proper red lights that shone permanently on the back of the bike. Most had no lights at all; some had strobe lights or lights that went out when the cyclists were stationary. Can that also be sorted out by penalty offences? It would be in the interests of cyclists to display lights at night to give motorists more of a chance of seeing them.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

The right hon. Gentleman is right. Bicycles should be lit properly, not only in the interests of other people on the road, but in the interests of the person sitting on the bicycle. Some cyclists think that the fact that they can see is sufficient, but it is important, because they are vulnerable in traffic, that they are also seen. It is probably more important than when one is in a motor vehicle.

Such offences are not covered by the clause, but they are important in the enforcement of general safety on the road. Having said that, I hope that the Committee will resist the amendments.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I am sorry that the adjournment over lunch has resulted in the Minister losing sight of one of the points that was made by the Metropolitan police. When they were first consulted on the subject, they took the view that they would be happy with civil enforcement, but then realised that their own traffic warden service and community support officers could be used to enforce moving-traffic offences. The Metropolitan police, their traffic wardens and their support officers should be given the first chance of ensuring that such offences can be enforced.

The Metropolitan police said in their letter that because there is no proposal to change the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, their traffic wardens would be in an inferior position to civil enforcement officers employed by the local authority in relation to enforcement. Do the Government really intend that?

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I thought that I had made this clear, but let me make it even clearer. Under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, boroughs can pass a resolution in their authorities that enables them to enforce the particular listed offences. That relates to matters such as box junctions, right turns, one-way streets and so on. However, the police would then not have the powers to enforce those offences. I was saying that the Bill allows regulations to be made for dual enforcement that applies in and outside London. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman and the Metropolitan police, in response to the document with which they provided us.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I am grateful for that explanation. I move on to one other issue that is still causing me concern, which is reasonableness. We referred to it in an earlier debate. As I understand the annual report of the parking adjudication service, the service has relied heavily on the guidance set out by the Government on decriminalised parking enforcement as a reason for being able to decide that if cases are brought unreasonably and there are extenuating circumstances, local authorities should take account of those circumstances, although, according to the letter of the law, they are not required so to do. The adjudication service relies on Government guidance in order to introduce some common sense into that regime.

I am not aware of the Minister having issued, or being prepared to issue, guidance on civil enforcement of the other offences in the schedule. I should be grateful if he would indicate what will happen on that. Otherwise, I can see that there will be an easier regime for local authorities in respect of parking, and a different one for moving traffic offences.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

That is a reasonable point. We want these offences to be imposed reasonably, because what matters is not only the imposition of the offence, but whether that achieves the objective, which is a better flow of traffic. This is not about fining people or imposing offences, but about getting traffic moving. We shall ensure that such matters are set out clearly in the guidance on the way in which civil enforcement officers should work.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

The Minister refers to guidance. For clarification, perhaps he could tell us which part of the Bill sets up that guidance or tell us the time scale for issuing it and under which powers it will be issued. I should be grateful if he would answer that point at some stage.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I will ensure that the answer is provided to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister. There is still much unease outside the House of Commons about the civil enforcement of moving traffic offences. There has been limited use of that in London, and the Bill proposes that it should be extended throughout the country. Of all the amendments to clause 69, I shall press to a vote amendment No. 138, which would remove the permission for moving traffic contraventions to be subject to civil enforcement. However, I shall not press to a vote amendment No. 136. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 138, in

page 41, leave out line 25.—[Mr. Chope.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.