CLAUSE 67.—(Power to provide parking places for vehicles.) (Hansard, 19 June 1925)

§ Lord E. PERCY
I beg to move, in page 37, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "repairable by the inhabitants at large."
This and the following Amendment are designed to extend the power of the local authority to provide parking places from public streets to private streets also, but in the second Amendment that power can only be exercised with the authority of the person responsible for the maintenance of the street. This, I believe, is already the case in London, and we want to extend it to other parts of the country. There can be no objection to the proposal when there are private streets which are more suitable for parking purposes.

§ Major TASKER
Could power be given to enable local authorities to utilise squares in large cities like London, for the parking of cars? There are schemes afoot for creating underground parking places. Such parking places would not interfere with the ordinary street traffic, and congestion would be reduced.

§ Lord E. PERCY
The Clause of the Bill gives power to the local authority to acquire land suitable for use as a parking place; or utilise any lands which may lawfully be appropriated for the purpose; or by order authorise the use as a parking place of any part of a street repairable by the inhabitants at large within their district. I think that gives quite wide enough powers to use the subsoil of a square, as well as the square itself.

§ Major TASKER
I submit that you can hardly define a square as a "street."

§ Mr. J. JONES
Does the parking of cars and heavy vehicles in side streets mean that the local authority will have the right to give permission to park cars without having any claim made for payment of compensation? It is all very well to talk about the West End of London. What about the East End? There we have many motor vehicles, some of them carrying as much as 10 tons. Are they to be allowed to park in the side streets, and are the local authorities to pay the bill for the maintenance of those side streets? In the docks' area we have often as many as 50 or 60 heavily-laden vehicles which cannot get through the main roads because of congestion. Are those vehicles to be allowed to use side streets which have not been built for that kind of traffic, and are the local authorities to pay the Bill for the repair of the side streets, without any compensation, or will the owners of the vehicles be asked to pay something towards the cost of the maintenance? Are local authorities to have some compensation for giving the right to park in side streets?

§ Lord E. PERCY
The Amendment has nothing to do with the repair of streets. All that it does is to enable an authority to use, for parking, a street for the repair of which it is not responsible. Therefore, the only question which would arise on this particular Amendment is whether the owner of the street, the person responsible for repairing the private street, would want to exact some compensation for allowing parking. But that has nothing to do with this Amendment.

§ Mr. J. JONES
That is all very well for private streets. What I am talking about is the dock area, where there are no private streets. Are local authorities to have the same power as private individuals?

§ Lord E. PERCY
The hon. Member is talking about something which is not in the Amendment. This Clause gives the local authority power to provide parking places, but it does not give power to charge for the use of any part of a public street. That is rather a difficult question. If the local authority sets apart a parking place which is not a public street, it may charge for it, but if in the exercise of its own discretion it says, "You must not 1026 let your vehicles stand along this road, and I will force you, if you want to let the vehicle stand, to send it to some particular street," it is very doubtful whether the local authority ought to charge for such use of a public street. It is a controversial point with which we cannot deal in this Bill, but the hon. Member may rest assured that we will consider in future the question whether a local authority should be given power to charge for parking places in public streets, as they will have power to charge for parking places out of public streets.

§ Mr. B. PETO
The Noble Lord said that the second of the Amendments which he is to move was consequential on that which is now before the House. I would like to be clear as to the purpose of the two Amendments. Is it to empower the local authority to take any private street, for the repair of which it is not responsible, and to do so without the consent of the owner of the street who has to keep it in repair?

§ Lord E. PERCY
The owner of the street who is responsible for its repair will in all cases be able to give or withhold his consent as he pleases, and the local authority will not be able to use the street unless the owner gives consent.

§ Mr. PETO
If the consent is refused and in the opinion of the local authority the space is required for parking, what is to happen?

§ Lord E. PERCY
This Bill gives no additional powers to the local authority. I cannot say off hand, but I am wondering whether there is anything under the general powers to enable local authorities to purchase. I think not. I think local authorities have to "lump it."

§ Mr. B. PETO
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (7) to insert a new Sub-section: (8) The exercise by the local authority of their powers under this Section with respect to the use as a parking place of any 1027 part of any street shall render them liable in respect of any damage resulting from such use to any property of the owners or occupiers of premises in the street. I must apologise to the House for handing in a manuscript Amendment at this point. In justification, I am bound to say to those hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill, that it is a little difficult to follow the proceedings to-day, in view of the fact that the Bill has only just reached our hands. My attention has been called particularly to this Clause. I have not been able to study the whole Bill, but I have given some attention to this Clause. In view of the Amendments which have just been passed, it becomes clear that the local authority is empowered to take part of a private street for the purpose of parking cars. That is a serious power. We have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that there are 2,000 new cars going on the road every week, and undoubtedly this is becoming a very big question, not only in the towns and cities, but elsewhere. The position is that the local authority may, with the consent of the owners of a private street, utilise that private street for parking purposes. What is to happen if he withholds his consent is not clear. Sub-section (6) provides that a local authority may make regulations as to the use of parking places, and, in particular, as to the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use such parking places, as to the conditions on which any such parking place may be used, and as to the charges to be paid to the local authority in connection with the use of the parking place. So far, we have these points—that the owner of a private street may give power to the local authority to use his property for this purpose, and that the local authority may make a charge upon the cars so parked.

§ Lord E. PERCY
The local authority may not make any charge in the case of a street. The Sub-section refers to the use of any parking place "not being part of a street."

§ Mr. PETO
Then I must withdraw the part of my argument which relates to the charge, but what use a parking place 1028 would be, if it were not connected with the street, I cannot understand. I am informed that where streets or squares, whether public or private, are used for parking from time to time damage is done. Railings may be disturbed and, outside London, grass plots and so forth may be destroyed. Obviously, there is a risk, if there is public user, of damage being done, and it seems only reasonable that, if the local authority is to have power to take private property for a public purpose, and if any damage results, the damage should not fall upon the owner of the private property. My Amendment seems a reasonable proposition, and I cannot imagine that the Noble Lord or the House will not agree with it. It seems quite clear that if, in the public interest, the owner of a property allows that property to be used as a parking place he should not be liable to bear any damage which is done to his property as a result of the additional user by the public. It is quite obvious that the local authority, which is the natural authority to provide these public facilities, should undertake the liability for any damage which may occur as a result. We should be introducing a new principle in this Measure—which is supposed to be merely a consolidation of the existing law—if we not only gave powers for the use of private property in the public interest, but if we also placed the burden of any damage caused by any such user upon the owner of the property.

§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEY
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Lord E. PERCY
I think this Amendment goes rather too far, and I do not think my hon. Friend the Mover realises how far it goes. He has justified it on the ground that if, by agreement with the owner of a private street, the local authority makes a parking place in that street, then the owner should be relieved of any liability in respect of damage done. But the proposal goes much further than that, and places on the local authority liabilities for damage which, in other circumstances, might not be liabilities of the owner of the street at all. The hon. Member's proposal, in effect, is that, if a street is being used as a parking place, and if a certain number of careless or hurried motorists, as they go off from the parking place, run into the railings, the 1029 local authority should be liable. But the liability for such damage now is not on the owner or occupier of the street, but on the motorist, and my hon. Friend proposes to transfer that liability from the motorist to the local authority—possibly because it is easier to get the money out of them. I do not think that will do. I can quite easily understand the owner of a street attaching to his consent any conditions which he pleases to safeguard his own interest, but to go beyond that and say that the local authority must be liable for all damage caused by motorists who make use of the parking place is going too far. I do not wish to be monotonous in my repetition of the proposal, but I would suggest here again that my hon. Friend should consult with me between now and the time when this Bill comes from another place to see if we cannot meet his point by a far narrower proposal.

§ Mr. PETO
My Amendment distinctly says "in respect of any damage resulting from such use." It is only in a case where the local authority seeks to bring to the street a number of motors which would not otherwise have come near the private property at all, and damage then results that the local authority would be liable.

§ Lord E. PERCY
How is anybody to judge whether the motors would or would not have been there if there had not been the parking place? The result of his proposal, I can assure my hon. Friend, would be, in practice, that the local authority would be liable for a lot of damages for which the motorist is liable now, and he would be putting the liability on the local authority merely because the local authority had, to the best of its ability, provided for the best use of the street, that street being a street which the public is entitled to use. To put on the local authority a liability which ought to be borne by the careless motorist is really going too far.

§ Mr. PETO
In view of the assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.