New Clause.—(POWER TO IMPOSE A CHARGE FOR STREET PARKING PLACES.) (Hansard, 12 June 1953)

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

§ Sir G. Hutchinson
On a point of order. Is it your intention, Sir Charles, to call the proposed new Clause (Insurance of officers) standing in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay)?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)
That Clause was put down for the Committee stage.

§ Sir G. Hutchinson
I thought we had resumed the Report stage.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Yes, we are on the Report stage now, but the proposed new Clause to which the hon. and learned Member referred is a Committee Clause.

§ Sir G. Hutchinson
It was put down for the Report stage of the Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It is down for the Committee stage. The Report stage begins in the middle of page 1569 of the Notice Paper.

§ Sir G. Hutchinson
I do not know what change has been made in the Notice Paper since last night. There is a Motion that certain new Clauses should be recommitted. In certain circumstances, that recommittal might be unnecessary. The proposed new Clause to which I refer was put down for the Report stage in the first place.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It is not now on the Paper for the Report stage.

§ Mr. John Hay (Henley)
I do not know whether you have the Paper available, Sir Charles, but on page 1553 of the Notices of Motion relating to the Order Paper are notices given up to and including 10th June. Proposed new Clauses, including the one already moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) and disposed of, were all put down for the consideration of the Bill, as amended. Subsequently on the Notice Paper this morning, these new Clauses appear as being taken on the Committee stage on recommittal, on page 1568. As the proposed new Clause was put down by my hon. Friend and myself for the Report stage of the Bill, it should now be taken, 625 as the House has resumed consideration of the Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
There is no notice of that on the Paper, and I have no power to do anything in the matter. I am very sorry, but I cannot possibly do anything.

§ Sir G. Hutchinson
It seems a little unfortunate that, because of the rearrangements made, we cannot have an opportunity of discussing this Clause and matters which arise on it and which are of some importance.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am very sorry, but I must go by the Notice Paper. I have no option in the matter at all.

§ Mr. Hay
May I ask for your guidance? What are hon. Gentlemen to do in these circumstances? We put down a new Clause for consideration on the Report stage. The Order Paper, on page 1553, makes it clear that that is so. The Notice Paper appeared this morning showing that this particular Clause is placed in an entirely different category consequent upon a Motion, or an Amendment to a Motion, being put down that these proposals should be considered when the Bill was recommitted. Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair and took that original Motion, did not call the Amendments to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead. If that is the case, I submit that the proposed new Clause should revert from that category to the former category that it had and for which it was originally and properly put down, namely, for consideration on the Report stage of the Bill. I submit that we are entitled to ask for the proposed new Clause to go back into the original category, under the heading for which it was originally put down.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think that the hon. Member is trying to get the best of both worlds.

§ Mr. Hay
No.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Yes, if I may be allowed to finish my sentence. If the hon. Member refers to the Standing Committee stage, he will find that the new Clause in which he was interested was ruled out of order because it proposed a charge and therefore it would have to be recommitted. It could not be considered on Report if it increased a charge. He must have known that, for 626 there is a Motion in his name asking that it be recommitted, and surely he cannot have two shots at it.

§ Sir G. Hutchinson
The difficulty is due to the fact that the Amendment to the recommitted Motion, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), was not selected. The result of that is that all these Clauses which, as my hon. Friend has said, were set down in the first place for consideration on the Report stage, and to which the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend refers, have now been automatically cut out. We have had no opportunity of making certain submissions to the Chair as we desired to do.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The power of selection and the question of whether Mr. Speaker selects any or all of these Amendments are, of course, entirely in Mr. Speaker's hands. They have not been selected and there is no possible way of dealing with these new Clauses now on the Report stage. I am sorry, but there is no possible way at all.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
If I may resume what I began to say a long time ago, this new Clause seeks to give powers to local authorities to impose a charge for street parking places. It may be for the convenience of the House if I read Section 68 (6) of the Public Health Act, 1925. It may enable hon. Members to follow the argument that I seek to put forward. That subsection reads: 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 any such parking place, as to the conditions upon 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 any parking place not being part of a street, and a copy of any such regulations shall be exhibited on or near any parking place to which the regulations relate. It will be noted that the subsection does not enable a local authority to use any part of a street as a parking place.
A situation has now arisen in which in certain circumstances, in my view, it would be in the public interest that local authorities should have power to designate part of a street as a parking place. It is of interest to note that in the very useful Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London, 1953, which was recently published, par- 627 ticular attention is paid by the Working Party to the suggestion that parking meters should be installed. In fact the Report recognises the installation of parking meters, and states: To ensure that drivers have a fair chance of finding parking space in streets where interference with traffic is avoided, we recommend that when the garages have been built,"— These are garages under the squares of London— an experimental 'Parking Meter' system should be introduced. It is, of course, true, and I readily admit it, that motoring organisations were in 1925, when the Public Health Act was passed, and are at the present time opposed to the general principle of making a charge for parking on the public highway. It is significant, however, that the Working Party's Report went on to say: The representatives of the motoring organisations and the commercial vehicle users' organisations … do not object to the experimental installation of parking meters in the special case of limited parts of central London, so that the advantages and disadvantages of their use may be assessed. This new Clause does not relate to London, where I readily admit special conditions prevail. The new Clause will enable local authorities outside the London traffic area, if they so wish—there is no compulsion—in suitable circumstances and in co-operation with the Minister of Transport, to install parking meters. At present they have not that power. The facts at our disposal at present show that where parking meters have been used—and they have been used extensively in the United States since 1935—the experiment has proved a success. It appears that in over 3,000 cities in the United States these parking meters are now being operated. The Working Party's Report pointed out: We have been particularly impressed by the widespread increase in their use since the war and by the general acceptance they seem to have won. Initial opposition in particular cities has usually changed to approval after a short trial. Those are the views of this highly competent Working Party.
I want to allay any anxiety which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), the author of this Bill, may have by saying I do not propose to press this new Clause to a 628 Division. I do not propose to use such influence as I have to wreck this Bill if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport says that for the moment, at any rate, this new Clause cannot be accepted. I am merely seeking to open out the general issue as briefly as I can, in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport may give the House and the country the benefit of such views as he can give to us at the moment. I hope that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman will be a little more benign than he has been on previous occasions when I have sought to take part and put questions in debates on transport. I hope that today he will not treat me with the same robust asperity as he has treated me on previous occasions.
I hope that some hon. Member will second my Motion. I have not taken any steps to whip up any support for this new Clause. I should like this proposal to be discussed purely on its merits and not as a result of a lot of lobbying and working up of agitation. I hope that if the Motion is seconded we shall have the benefit of some sympathetic words from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is perhaps present for the purpose, among other things, of hearing what I have to say.

§ Mr. Gibson
I beg to second the Motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gnrney Braithwaite)
As this proposed new Clause affects very considerably the Ministry of Transport, perhaps I should indicate briefly what our attitude is. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has received the impression of robust asperity when I have replied to him on previous occasions. I am sorry that I have created that impression.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, on this occasion, correctly anticipated the line which I shall have to take this morning on this matter. This is a power which has been discussed by the House on very many occasions, and when I saw this new Clause on the Order Paper, I looked up the debates which took place on the Public Health Act, 1925, and on Section 68 in particular. I find that on no less than six occasions the House discussed this matter—it is true, some years 629 ago—but were not in favour of the proposal.
Incidentally, it is interesting to find that in another place there was proposed an Amendment which would have provided for a charge being made by local authorities for the services of an attendant. When the Bill came back here, we did not agree with their Lordships on the Amendment, and out it went. That is what happened in 1925.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the recent Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London, and this was one of their suggestions. The view of my right hon. Friend is that any such experiments should be made only after the most careful thought and with vigorous safeguards. He does not consider that it would be appropriate to insert this power in this Bill, which I know the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has worked so hard on its various provisions, is anxious should be as non-controversial as possible.
We have no intention of closing the door once for all upon this proposal. We feel strongly that this is not a power which should be granted to local authorities generally all over the country until there has been an opportunity of making the experiment which I have mentioned, if at some future time the House decides that that is desirable. If such an experiment is carried out, the House will then have an opportunity—this is rather like the matter which we were discussing earlier on the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke)—to consider its detailed results, and in the light of that knowledge we should—and this is my view—surely then be in a much better position to consider a proposal on the lines of this new Clause.
If I recommend to the House on this occasion that this new Clause should not be accepted, I should at the same time like to take the opportunity of assuring the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his proposal will be borne carefully in mind with a view to experiments being made at a future date so that a more favourable opportunity may be taken of considering the proposal.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
May I put this question? I quite appreciate the value 630 of experimental tests. Would it be likely that any local authority wishing to carry out an experimental test of this kind would be able, with the approval of the Ministry of Transport and subject to necessary safeguards, to obtain the necessary powers which would enable that local authority to conduct the experiment?

Mr. Braithwaite
I think the first step must be to look at this recommendation of the Working Party. I think the experiment will begin on that basis. I should not like at this moment to commit my right hon. Friend beyond that. I know that he is studying the matter very carefully.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.