To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they and the Security Industry Authority are taking regarding the unjustified clamping and removal of cars.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the usual channels for finding time for this Question for Short Debate and to all noble Lords who agreed to speak at such short notice.

As far back as 1997, it was apparent that the clamping of vehicles parked on private land was becoming a serious problem because the law was not fit for purpose, and that is still the case 12 years later. If anything, the problem is getting worse. The short answer to my Question in respect of the SIA is “not very much” because it does not have the power. The Government for their part have belatedly issued a consultation, which I will turn to later. Before getting into detail, I should make it clear that I fully accept that there is a need for legitimate parking controls, including clamping—for example, at a doctor’s surgery next to a convenience store or a pub with inadequate parking provision.

I apologise if I tar these operations with a very black and broad brush, but my target is those parasitic operators who prey on vulnerable motorists who are ill equipped to defend themselves. These are the decent, hard working and skilled men and women who go about their business but have to use a vehicle extensively. The release, tow-away and storage charges are disproportionate because they are unregulated by the law and are often much more than the statutory removal fees set by the Minister and his department. Moreover, the statutory removal fees are based upon vehicle recovery operations, pressure of time and 24/7 availability, but parking control operations are much simpler and less costly.

The Government introduced the Private Security Industry Act 2001, the PSIA, but this was primarily concerned with the private security industry, club bouncers and the like. However, it provided that an individual involved in vehicle immobilising, known as a VI, has to be licensed by the Security Industry Authority. The SIA is not an appeal body and malpractice is outside its remit. The appeal mechanism lies within the company alleged to be at fault, but there is no requirement for the company to be registered or approved in any way. The SIA is obviously not as well resourced as it would like to be, and its problem is that 1 per cent of its licensed members are VIs, but this generates 25 per cent of its parliamentary correspondence and at least 70 Parliamentary Questions per year. That cannot be a lot of fun for the SIA. If a motorist complains to the police, they will say it is a civil matter and decline to get involved. The police are right because they have no powers, but it is extremely damaging to their reputation among decent, hard working members of the public.

For the past 12 years, the Government have completely failed to deal with this problem, leaving the most industrious and vulnerable members of our society exposed to the following problems: inadequate or misleading signage that sometimes leads motorists to park where they should not; the size of the release and tow-away fees, coupled with the curious reluctance of VI companies to take payment by means of a card—I wonder why they do that—immediate clamping or towing away without exercising any discretion; operatives refusing to identify themselves, leading one to suspect that a number of them are unlicensed; operatives luring people to park, or intimidating them for payment; the SIA’s lack of powers against these types of conduct; and the clamping of vehicles that should never be clamped because of their use.

There is also a new problem concerning the use of cameras and the complicity of the DVLA, which seems to have a policy of releasing as much private information as possible. This help from the DVLA results in unsophisticated motorists being sent a document that is made to look like a fine originating from the Government or their agents, but is more likely to have come from a parasite.

Ministers belatedly recognised the problem and issued a consultation paper on 30 April this year. The Minister will have seen some dodgy staff work in his time, but I am sure that this paper can take pride of place in his black museum. It is well drafted, but it demonstrates that Ministers and the Government have a complete lack of comprehension of the scale, nature and effect of clamping.

The paper is full of holes. For instance, it is predicated on the fact that there are only 1,900 licensed VIs. Elsewhere, it notes that some VIs refuse to identify themselves. A recent GfK NOP survey commissioned by the RAC Foundation suggested that between 8 and 12 per cent of households have had at least one vehicle clamped on private land. This, coupled with the amount of parliamentary activity, suggests that the 1,900 licensed VIs are amazingly active. A more likely explanation is that the problem is much bigger than the Government recognise.

The paper offers only four options. The first is to do nothing, an option that should always be considered. The second is a voluntary code of practice, which is more or less what we have now. The third is regulation by a business licensing system, which apparently is the preferred option. However, this is a cosy cartel set up and run by the parking industry for its own benefit. Where is the independent tribunal component? Since depriving a person of their freedom of movement is a serious matter, there should be a proper and genuinely independent appeals mechanism. The fourth option is a compulsory approved contractor scheme. A voluntary scheme is in place, but only five companies are in it. My guess is that the SIA does not want any greater involvement than running the licensing system, as the regulatory and appeals side is seen as a poisoned chalice.

I am sure that the Minister, like me, will wonder why the paper did not consider other options. A permit could be issued by the local authority, which would introduce a strong element of local democratic checks and balances, to ensure that parking controls are necessary in the location applied for. On the same tack, should it be legal for a VI company to pay a landowner for the right to exercise parking controls? This is happening more often, and the incidence will increase further as premises with parking fall out of use. Another option might be to use the parking appeals tribunal currently used for resolving on-street parking appeals.

The partial impact assessment is just that. It looks closely at the costs to the VI industry, but not at the costs to the motorist and his employer, or the adverse effect on productivity. It is also predicated on a very low number of VIs and VI companies.

This is a sorry tale of ineffective government. The consultation is full of holes and demonstrates that the Government do not fully understand the impact of their inaction. There is now not enough time to effect any changes before the end of this Parliament. That is bad for all the stakeholders: the property owners, the respectable VIs and parking companies and, above all, the motorists.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on securing this debate today; it is very important. He ended by saying that there is not enough time in this Parliament to introduce any regulations. I am not sure whether that is a threat or a promise, and if his party by some fluke wins the next election I will be interested to see how quickly it introduces the right regulations, but that is for the future.

This is a serious example of a part of the motor industry that is wholly unregulated. It is almost the law of the jungle. That worries me, because attitudes in one area, such as the issue of parking, which we are discussing tonight, will have an effect on the attitude of motorists to other issues. The Government have done a good job in the past few years in encouraging motorists to obey the law, whether on speeding, drink-driving or drivers’ hours. We are getting better, but there is still a long way to go with some trucks.

I was talking to a former director of VOSA recently, who told the story of some checks that he was doing on truck drivers going between Ireland and eastern Europe. The company sacked all the Irish drivers and replaced them with eastern European drivers and paid them £2.50 or £3 an hour. If they stopped for a rest—which of course is statutory—they were charged the same rate per hour as if they had been in a hotel, because they were not moving. The consequence of driving for 36 hours without any rest or sleep is extremely serious.

VOSA is doing better; it needs to do an awful lot more. The point is the difference between what motorists expect and what they get when they obey the law as laid down by the Government, agencies and local authorities—what motorists expect and often get, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, when they try off-street parking. The stories abound of serious problems. As the noble Earl said, the Security Industry Authority licenses individuals, so when you complain to the company, the company says that it has nothing to do with it. Often the company allegedly in charge of the parking employs a subcontractor. Motorists wonder who they should appeal to. There are stories of companies saying, “You cannot appeal until you have paid the fine in the first place”. That is the usual business of people being guilty until they have tried to demonstrate their innocence. It is not even an independent appeal. Something needs to be done to sort out that process.

We have had a lot of debate in your Lordships' House recently about the police not always having their numbers on display. My noble friend has made some positive and welcome comments about that. It is perfectly reasonable that private sector people who operate these parking lots should have some identification that means something. We have even greater trouble with CCTV, because there will be no contact between the motorist and the company until the motorist receives a nasty letter through the post saying, “You were seen there and it will cost you a lot of money”.

I hope that my noble friend can help me with this. The Transport Select Committee produced what appears to be a very robust recommendation in its report. It basically says that the whole process should be governed,

“by the same framework of restrictions and codes of practice as public on-street clamping. The Government should ensure an equable legal framework including public roads and private land used by the public for parking, which will stamp out these abuses”.

That clearly refers to both the private sector operators and the public sector ones as well.

I conclude by commending, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has done, the organisation that deals with parking appeals in London. I had reason to appeal a few years ago to this organisation about something which my son had done. It turned on whether a parking restriction on a particular road was applicable on Sunday. It is an example to follow. It was very easy; it was quick and convenient. You felt that it was absolutely fair—they listened to your evidence and to the evidence from the local authority; I presented a photograph of the road sign, which said parking was not forbidden on Sunday, and we got the answer. It is not a very difficult thing to do and I do not imagine it costs very much. However, it would give confidence to motorists that they were going to be treated fairly—they would behave better and it would give the industry a good name. I do hope that my noble friend will consider that when he responds.

My Lords, I listened with great interest to what my noble friend had to say and I agree with everything that he put before us. My interest in the SIA is not so much to do with private clampers but with bailiffs, whom it is also due to regulate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, will be speaking in the gap, although it seems not, which is sad, as she seems to be making some good progress in getting the SIA under control. It was not the best of regulators before she arrived. It suffers from the great deficit that it cannot deal with complaints but just regulates. You cannot, as has been demonstrated by my noble friend, have a system of regulation and registration without having a complaints system, with teeth, tied in with it in some way.

The SIA could say that we will not register a clamper unless it belongs to a reputable organisation that has a proper complaints and adjudication procedure so that something is made available for motorists who get stuck in this way. That does not seem to be difficult. You have that point of impact on people when you give them a licence. If they have not signed up to a complaints procedure then you do not give them a licence. That does not require any legislation or any changes. It requires someone to have the courage to say that, “Yes you, the British Parking Association”—which after all is a thoroughly reputable organisation—“is running a complaints and disciplinary procedure that we are happy to go along with, and being a member of that process would tick the box”. That seems to be a lot simpler than trying to create something statutory, or, worse still, trying to run a complaints system through the department.

I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said about the appeals procedures for ordinary—as one might call them—public sector tickets. I do not think they are actually that satisfactory. The whole appeals procedure is not allowed to listen to common sense. It has very restricted grounds for appeal and there is immense inefficiency in some local authorities. Camden sends tens of thousands of people to bailiffs every year because of parking tickets, mostly because of its own inefficiency in contacting those people in the first place and its own rapacity in setting up traps for motorists where there should be none. It is not an elegant and perfect system in the public sector either.

My Lords, I confirm that I referred to the London system and not to a nationwide one. The London system is very good.

My Lords, PATAS is not a bad organisation, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, found out not so long ago when she tried judicially to review it, what it can do is greatly restricted. In particular, it is not allowed to pay any attention to common sense; it just has a set of six very restricted grounds on which it can allow an appeal. I am glad that the noble Lord came within that set, but many people with many good cases do not because of the way in which it has been set up.

I like self-regulation if we can give people access to it. I hope that the Minister will find a way of doing this, because it would be an easy remedy to the problems which my noble friend illustrates.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on securing the time for this debate and on his excellent introduction to it. He covered pretty much all the points that need to be covered.

I declare an interest in that, a few weeks ago, my husband was parked for four hours, for which he paid, in a car park in Exeter. Although he was fined and not clamped, his letter to Premier Parking Solutions, which is managed by Valley Enforcement Limited, makes some of the important points that I would have made, and I am grateful to him for having done the homework, albeit unintentionally, for this debate. He wrote:

“Your sign warns of penalties for overstay; but £100 for a very short overstay after a five hour period of paid for parking seem to me to be grossly disproportionate, and if it was to be enforced at that level then it should be backed by very prominent signage. What is the basis of this charge, and is it backed by a statutory order? If so where can I inspect such an order? I can find no trace of it in the public domain. If I am satisfied that it is properly legally enforceable, then of course I shall pay. If it is not, then I shall offer you a nominal sum in damages for my overstay of say £10 and then dispute any demand for further payment in Courts. I have copied this to the Environment Director at Devon County Council and the Leader of the City Council as this kind of practice could seriously damage Exeter’s reputation as a tourist and business destination”.

Funnily enough, my husband is a Devon county councillor and an executive member of the council’s Strategic Planning, Regional and International Affairs Committee. That is relevant, because he is very concerned about the reputation that towns get, and these sorts of practices are sometimes unfairly blamed on the local authority and not on the private operator who is committing these abuses. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to my noble friend Lady Walmsley, who had to go to extraordinary lengths to prove how unfair the system was. She did the public a service in doing that. There is a widespread feeling, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, that the hardworking individual who tries to do their best to be law abiding is at a significant disadvantage in every way because this is not regulated or taken seriously.

The Government will complain about the lack of time in which to do something about this, but there is plenty of time this evening as the House will run out of business very shortly. I remind the Minister that just a few weeks ago we in this House considered a statutory instrument to update the legislation on the SIA, so it is possible to do something. The Government have been aware for some time that when the SIA was introduced in 2001 it was not given the necessary powers to limit these sorts of activities and that there is not even a code of conduct. Those issues could have been addressed in the SI that we were talking about recently.

The scale of the clamping industry is enormous. I gather it is in the region of £240 million a year, so this is not just small beer. It is something that I should have thought the Government would be very anxious to get to grips with, given its effect on individuals. I would particularly like the Minister to comment on the role of the DVLA in all this. Should it actually co-operate with the private companies operating in a most unsatisfactory way—or even if they were operating in a satisfactory way, should it co-operate? Do Her Majesty’s Government have a policy on this? Does the Minister feel that it is satisfactory?

The Government themselves could do a large amount to resolve the situation, but some of it is what other speakers have mentioned: the fact of the signage; the fact that very often the private car park operators try to make their car park look as like a public one as possible, I would say in order to deceive people, so they think that the same rules apply, when in fact they do not.

What would the Liberal Democrats do? For some time now we have had a firm policy that was documented in our Fast Track Britain. In that publication we say:

“We will tackle abuses of power, poor standards and unfair appeals procedures in relation to car parking. We will regulate the parking system and increase confidence in Local Authority Parking Enforcement by creating an ‘Independent Parking Complaints Authority’…to act as a regulator for all car parks over 10 spaces and be responsible for policing the standards for all parking facilities and decriminalised parking enforcement—including appeals processes, adequate lighting and public safety provision, disabled parking provision and adequate signage of fines. The IPCA remit will include applications for the blue badge scheme and the implementation and management of this scheme. The IPCA will recognise those car parks meeting the required standards by awarding a kite mark. The IPCA will replace the Traffic Penalty Tribunal which does not tackle private car parks, and it will be funded by a levy on all car park operators”.

I commend that policy to the Minister and I urge him to find parliamentary time to take forward the suggestions made in this debate because it is a serious issue for all of the individuals who have been so unfairly treated—people who have had their cars towed away, people who have had to deal with clamping which causes trauma and puts them to enormous expense, and people who have been faced with fines that can be set at a level and then arbitrarily increased with no oversight from anyone.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on obtaining this debate. It touches on an issue which is of great interest to many members of the public, as we know from the number of letters that have been written and other contacts that have been made, as well as to many Members of this House, those who have spoken in this debate and the other place.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed. There are a lot of problems within this area, and I am glad to say that we are beginning to address them. It was also good that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out that that we need some regulation of private space, such as where there is a doctor’s surgery and a supermarket close by. I can think of things such as rugby matches when spaces being filled are actually for other purposes, so it is quite right and appropriate to have a method by which people can ensure that their private land is not used if they do not want that to happen and, if they are willing to let other people use it, they should have some control. It is absolutely right that we should do something about this in primary legislation; we intend to legislate as soon as possible in the next Session.

The role of the Security Industry Authority is to regulate the private security industry in Great Britain under the Private Security Industry Act 2001; it reports to the Home Secretary. The 2001 Act requires the compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking designated activities. Under the Act, any individual in England and Wales involved in immobilising vehicles on private land—the noble Earl referred to these people as vehicle immobilisers, VIs—with a view to charging a release fee must hold a licence issued for the purpose from the SIA. This requirement also applies to anyone involved in blocking in or towing away vehicles for the same purpose, and to those who collect the fee. Directors, managers and company owners also require a licence, which is known as a “non-front line” licence. Licensing by the SIA will be extended to Northern Ireland on 1 December 2009. This does not apply to Scotland, which has separate laws on this issue.

As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, it is important to make it clear that the SIA is not involved where the owner of a vehicle which has been clamped or removed from private land disputes the justification for that action. Unless some criminal action is alleged it is a matter between the vehicle owner and those responsible for the clamping or towing. This has been touched on by a number of speakers and it is one of the problems. One feels at the mercy of these people and it is extremely difficult to get something done. I have been involved in an interesting debate with someone who tried to charge me on this sort of occasion. This is a very real issue.

The SIA licence requirement for individuals was aimed at excluding criminals. Of course, criminals have been involved. There have been cases where criminals have been caught and taken through due process of law for their involvement. There has also been unacceptable behaviour by individuals. However, while it has gone some way to ensuring good practice, it has been made clear by other speakers and the noble Earl that there remains a significant level of bad practice among some vehicle immobilisation businesses. I thank the noble Earl again for this debate because I certainly had not put my eyes on this issue and looked at it in any detail. I have found that quite useful.

At the request of Ministers, however—it was announced by my honourable friend Vernon Coaker in February 2008, more than a year ago—the SIA completed a feasibility study into regulating businesses in the industry. On the basis of its proposals we launched a public consultation on 30 April, to which reference has been made already. We want to curb the unacceptable practices of some businesses, over which the individual worker will probably have no or perhaps little control, such as exorbitant release fees, which a number of speakers have touched on. We need to put some balance behind that, and set some principles and top lines on what can be charged. On inadequate signage, to which reference has been made already, sometimes not only is the signage inadequate and it is unclear that one has to pay anything, but people are lulled into thinking that they can park for no or little fees. That is wrong as well and needs to be looked at. The noble Baroness referred to her husband and to parking in Exeter. I did not realise that these things happen in the West Country. I understood that they do in London, but it is terrible if it goes on down there.

Immediate clamping and towing away is unacceptable. If a person is two or three minutes over their time, suddenly being clamped or towed away is absolutely inappropriate. We need to look at that. The fact that wheel-clampers do not identify themselves is not correct and is not allowed. They should identify themselves, but sometimes they do not. Indeed, that was the main thrust of my debate with a gentleman on this issue. Nor should people be lured to park where they will be clamped.

Our preferred option is compulsory membership of a licensing scheme for vehicle immobilising businesses. A third party accrediting body would be contracted by the SIA to decide whether each company which applied for a licence met the scheme’s requirements. The SIA would remain as the regulator. The accrediting body, or bodies, would decide whether a business which applied for a licence met the requirements for qualification. It would also be responsible for monitoring all licensed companies to check their compliance with the scheme’s requirements. Failure to comply could result in the SIA removing the business’s licence or taking other action to secure compliance.

The noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about the DVLA. I understand that there is a concern here. This is really Department for Transport business, but, as I understand it, the DVLA has always taken the view that disclosure of data where there is a breach of civil or contract law is fair and reasonable. Tracing people who do not comply with the conditions for parking on private land is regarded in most circumstances as a reasonable cause. However, there are strict rules. For example, before being granted electronic access to DVLA records, a company must be a member of a DVLA-accredited trade association, and abide by its code of practice. The only trade association currently accredited for the private car park industry is the British Parking Association.

The Government have just launched a consultation that seeks views on the DVLA making keeper data available, whether electronically or manually, only to parking enforcement companies that are members of an approved trade association. We need to look at that area carefully within this consultation, because there is clearly something wrong if fines and so on are put out as if they come from the DVLA. That absolutely must not be allowed.

The noble Earl talked about partial impact assessment; this is a draft, and we need the comments received during the consultation to help refine the costs and benefits. The detail will be decided after that consultation; any inputs will be gratefully received, because there are some important issues here. The information received during the consultation will be taken into account.

I think that I have touched on how the proposals on business licensing, which the noble Earl specifically asked about, differ from the current arrangements. To run through them again, the issues, which we will decide on after public consultation, include: excessive penalties for releasing clamped cars; impounding cars unreasonably quickly; inadequate signage; an effective appeals process, which is important and has been touched on, and luring cars into car parks by any means.

The noble Earl also asked whether the Government could require local authorities to license private parking. Even if they did, it would require some business standards to be imposed. The real question is: who is in a position to do that, or has access to the necessary expertise? There is a danger that local authority licensing might just impose a layer of bureaucracy; that is something we need to look at in the consultation, as it might not be the right way ahead. There would also be the possibility of local authorities having competing and differing priorities at local level, depending on circumstances. I imagine that Twickenham would be very different from say, Wargrave, out in the Thames Valley.

The noble Earl specifically asked how the scheme will be enforced. Our preferred option is that businesses failing to comply with their licence conditions will be subject to sanctions. Exactly what those are, we will have to decide in the context of this consultation. The SIA will have powers to revoke or suspend a company’s licence if it is found to be breaching the conditions. There will also be specific criminal offences connected to working without a company licence or breaching licence conditions. From what has been said, people probably feel it is important that we can achieve that to get control. The detail of those offences will be determined as part of this consultation process.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked again about clampers. I touched on that and if clamping happens at night people sometimes feel intimidated. They cannot prove who has done it and do not know if they have a licence. It is clear that clampers must wear the licence when doing that, although the chap I had a discussion with was not, and that any licence-holder who collects a fee must provide a receipt, showing the location, the date and their own name, signature and licence number. If someone suspects that a person involved in immobilising or towing vehicles does not possess a licence or is failing to follow the rules they should report it to the SIA, as it is a criminal offence. I quite understand what the noble Earl was saying; if a single woman is parking somewhere, it is sometimes quite difficult to ascertain those things. However, that is probably about as far as we can go, as it is a criminal offence which would then have to be taken through due process of law.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned bailiffs, which is, of course, a matter for the Ministry of Justice. As I understand it, the details are being developed but an appeals process will be introduced. He also asked about the appeals process; it is part of the consultation, and I touched on it before. The scheme will prohibit employees or representatives from engaging in unacceptable practices, make them more accountable and require a transparent appeals system. The scheme should also include general and sector-specific licence conditions. We will have to be clear on what is laid down because these are not easy areas.

My message is this: we take this issue seriously. Perhaps we have taken too long to react, although we started the process a year ago last February. It is something that needs to be focused on and any input into the consultation will be extremely valuable. I hope that, with the consultation and the legislation which will be introduced in the next Session, we can take a good step forward. It is a worrying issue and sometimes leads to quite difficult situations, as I discovered myself. I hope that we can move it forward.