---

Lord Chancellor (Modification of Functions) Order 2007

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this order so clearly. When I read the title, I was surprised that the Lord Chancellor has more than a passing involvement in road traffic, except perhaps by obstructing it when his shiny, stately official limousine emerges sedately from the palace gates. However, like that other Chancellor, he apparently gets his fingers in everywhere. I note that any orders that are laid will now be subject to affirmative resolution in your Lordships’ House. That is a welcome change, but why is this necessary at all? It implies that the Government are admitting that they pushed through the 2004 Act without enough thought. I am sorry to say that it has a worrying smell of incompetence about it. I note that one of the effects of the order is to enable Greater London and Wales to be prescribed rules that are different from those for other parts of the United Kingdom, but that has surely been inherent in the intent of the existing legislation. The Minister explained the omission in the 2004 Act at some length, but was he saying that Section 101B, which concerns rights of appeal and the duties of drivers whose vehicles are removed because they are abandoned, was defective and did not allow different rules in London? Was Section 89 of the 2004 Act not designed to allow that? If the Act was defective, why has that only now—three years later—come to light? Few of us will have any sympathy with those who leave their cars on the public highway, but is the Minister aware that there are very serious public concerns about the way in which the management of traffic enforcement, appeals and adjudication are conducted in London? There are too many stories of overzealous, often obtuse, enforcement, such as the fine recently levied on a young girl in Twickenham whose car had broken down. She was ticketed because she pushed it partly onto the pavement to reduce obstruction. Too often action is taken, and when appeals are made, letters go unanswered. Even if appeals are upheld, money and time are seen to have been wasted on a process that common sense would have avoided. I have twice in recent months encountered this directly, and I cannot believe that other noble Lords have not had similar experiences. Drivers are never compensated for the unnecessary time, worry and expense. They are subject to criminal conviction under Section 101B if they do not conform with requests from an adjudicator, so it is essential that we see that the whole system operates fairly, efficiently and sensibly. If regulations are brought forward under this order relating to Section 101B powers, I hope that first an opportunity is taken to look at the frequently oppressive and insensitive administration of traffic regulations, especially in the Transport for London area. Traffic enforcement is becoming a seriously alienating issue between the public, businesses and public authorities, particularly in Greater London, and it needs to be looked at. Subject to those comments and to the assurance that the Government will consider carefully the licence given to Transport for London, which is not subject to effective democratic accountability, we welcome any effective and proportionate action that deals with the nuisance of abandoned vehicles.