HC Deb 16 December 1959 vol 615 cc1507-13

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill, to make provision for the better control of traffic in England and Wales; and for purposes connected therewith. My proposed Bill follows on completely from Thursday's debate, when there was almost unanimous agreement on both sides of the House that the only way to handle the developing congestion in London was to give powers to the Minister of Transport to cut across all the authorities at present in being and to take power to control the flow of traffic. My hon. Friends and I were very disappointed that the Minister did not make any statement of policy on this matter. He did not announce any road building programme, although it had been promised in the Conservative Party election manifesto that it would be doubled. He did not promise any legislation to take the power that was necessary. In fact, it was not until the end of the debate, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke, that we heard for the first time that the Pink Zone was coming to an end. It would have helped the debate if the Minister had made that rather unpopular announcement at the beginning.

The Pink Zone does not meet the problems—nobody pretends that it does —but it has certain palliative value which we hoped would be continued. At any rate, we now realise from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary why the Pink Zone was killed. It was killed by the Ministry of Works, because that Ministry was not prepared for the Royal Parks to be made available for car parking by the public generally in order to keep the Pink Zone in existence. In effect, the collapse of the Pink Zone is an example of the fact that there are vested interests inside the Government as well as outside.

The proposed Bill is a simple one. It states that the Minister of Transport may by Order in Council designate any area or areas of England and Wales as traffic control zones within the meaning of the Act, that he may take such powers over the public highways and their use as may seem to him necessary for the safe and rapid movement of traffic within each zone, and that Orders in Council under Clause I shall for the duration of the Act supersede any statutory powers hitherto conferred by Parliament. The effect is that we are giving all the powers that are necessary to the Minister in respect of any areas which he considers to be areas of traffic congestion.

Why do we seek to introduce the Bill at all today? The reason is that we still doubt whether the Minister has the power inside the Government to get the necessary authority to do the job. I read in the newspapers today a full survey of the Minister's activities. The Times says: The Government are still asking for legislation. The Daily Telegraph says: Mr. Marples is busy on his comprehensive plan. The Daily Express says: The jam-busting Minister of Transport is doing this or that. The Daily Mail says: The Premier approves Supremo Marples The Star describes the "Marples' Master-plan".

If all this is true, why did not the Minister say it on Thursday? What he said was: … the House would not expect any comprehensive statement from me. What I thought I would do was to give the House an indication of my first reactions on coming to the job. … Provided that anything I say is not held as committing me, I would like to be frank with the House …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1959; Vol. 615 c. 772.] When the Bill appeared on the Order Paper, the Press releases came out every five minutes from the Ministry, giving details of what the Minister intends to do.

The Minister said that having control of areas in London was a suggestion on which he would like the views of the House. Last Thursday, that was the suggestion on which he solicited our opinion. Today, it is the "Marples Master-plan". I can only tell the Minister that we believe that some action is called for. The right hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Hugh Molson) said on Thursday, speaking of his time at the Ministry of Transport: We were conscious of the problems which were arising, but until quite recently Ministers of Transport were not supported by public opinion and by the House …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1959; Vol. 615 c. 806.] It is a monstrous suggestion that the House has to push a Minister to do anything, but if that is the policy which is required, then we offer the Minister of Transport a Bill which will give him the power that he needs.

It is not an extension of the Pink Zone idea, because the Pink Zone does not meet the problem. The Bill gives centralised authority in any area that the Minister thinks necessary. He may take the central area, or he may decide to take the London through-routes in order to deal with the congestion there. He can take control in any area that he thinks necessary and decide whether there is to be parking or no parking, whether to continue off-street parking facilities, whether to have the movement of traffic in lanes and whether to control pedestrians. This last power must come. We cannot have a rule that a pedestrian must not walk along the main railway line to Manchester while he can still walk along any street without anyone having any control over him.

These powers are necessary. The public are impatient for action by the Minister. They are interested in him because he seems to be enthusiastic about doing things. He must realise that he will be judged on what he actually does about the problem of traffic it the big cities. There is no question that we could get a 50 per cent. increase in the movement of traffic with our existing roads if traffic engineering had not been neglected by his predecessors. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be one of the first to admit that it was neglected by his predecessors. If his predecessors had done their job, why should there be a need for emergency legislation?

We offer this very comprehensive Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has authorised me to say that we will be quite content to give all facilities to pass the Bill through all its stages in this House tomorrow. Natur- ally, we had hoped that we would not adjourn tomorrow. We have already opposed the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess, but, even so, we are prepared to try to get the Bill through all its stages in the House tomorrow and to give the Minister the power he needs.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I do not think that anyone will deny the urgency and gravity of the problem with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) seeks to deal. On the other hand, the hon. Member has not made the problem easier by introducing this Bill. It would be interesting to know from the hon. Gentleman, or from his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whether, whenever the Government show signs of embarking on an energetic policy, the Opposition intend immediately to introduce a Ten Minutes Rule Bill, thereby giving themselves some claim to saying that they have urged a certain course on the Government.

This has been a very successful publicity operation, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, let alone his right hon. Friend, would seek to make those who sit on the Treasury Bench, and whom the right hon. Gentleman so often describes as "those terrible men", into a set of little dictators, with absolute blanket powers. What on earth is Parliament for? We are here to make laws. While admitting the gravity and urgency of this problem, I for one would be loath to see a whole lot of Ministers armed with blanket powers.

The hon. Member seems to be most optimistic, for the duration of operation of the Bill is six months.

Mr. Benn

The hon. Gentleman has not seen the Bill. How can he know? In fact, it is eighteen months.

Mr. Peyton

A rumour reached me that it was six months. I am delighted to hear that from the hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that that is a change of mind. Eighteen months makes it a little more sensible than it was before.

We have had an interesting change of heart on the whole of this subject. First, we had a clearly chilly, if not angry, welcome from the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's announcement about the Pink Zone. Secondly, we had a Motion of censure. In a very able speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not critical of the Pink Zone, but that it totally failed to solve the major problem. Whatever he may say about this not being an extension of the Pink Zone, it seems very like a suggestion to create a whole mass of Pink Zones, not merely an extension of just one. The Minister can feel very flattered that his idea has caught on so well in such quarters. Now we have a Ten Minutes Rule Bill to create a mass of Pink Zones and most of the problems with which Parliament should deal are completely left on the shelf.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will put his hand on his heart before he makes any regulations and will say that he has the means and the will to enforce them, because we already have road signs like so much confetti sprinkling the countryside and honoured only in the breach. Questions of manpower, enforcement, spaces and the rights of individuals and local authorities are wholly ignored in the Bill. In dealing with a problem of this size, it is of paramount importance that Parliament should have at least an opportunity of passing an opinion.

I concede at once that the Minister will need very wide powers and, above all, much more money. I hope that very soon he will be able to tell the House that he has been able to elicit from his right hon. Friends at the Treasury an undertaking considerably and drastically to increase the road programme. I do not believe in government by exhortation. There has to be a price tag, not merely a plea for self-discipline from motorists which we have heard ad infinitum. I am certain that with the arrears in the road programme which we face today, we have to be prepared to double up, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell the House that that is to happen as soon as we get back after the Christmas Recess.

I do not wish to keep the House any longer, because I know that the Leader of the Opposition is anxious that his Motion on telephone tapping should proceed, and I should hate to get in his way in any manner. However, I should like to comment that it is somewhat odd that this Ten Minutes Rule procedure, that is, very much a back bench method, should now be used by a Front Bench spokesman, incidentally a Front Bench spokesman of a party both of whose leaders have had their cars towed away.

It is not for me to make suggestions to my hon. Friends about what course they should follow, but, if I were bold enough, I would say that, on the whole, in this instance it would not be worth the trouble to tow this wretched little Measure away through the Division Lobbies when, after all, it will not do much harm. It is rather like the congested traffic with which it seeks to deal —it will not get anywhere. Unlike that traffic, it will not get in anyone's way. It is a piffling little Measure. The only purpose which it is likely to serve is once again to give us an opportunity to talk about a subject on which many of us feel very strongly.

Mr. Benn

On a point of order. It is not in order for an hon. Member to rise on a Ten Minutes Rule Bill unless he proposes to oppose the Bill. Erskine May is categorical on this question, and I submit that the hon. Member's speech has been an abuse of the procedure of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

An hon. Member is not supposed to rise unless he intends to oppose the Bill, which is what I thought the hon. Member intended to do.

Mr. Peyton

The hon. Member has had his say and I have not said anything final. It is not in my power to do so. I am merely weighing the courses open to me.

Publicity may be desirable, but concrete proposals are even more so. This Bill has no such proposals within its covers. I conclude my remarks by saying with all the force I can that my hon. Friends and I hope for a proper, sound coherent Measure which will give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to cope with this most intransigent of problems. We shall be deeply disappointed if he fails in our expectations, although I am sure that he will not do so.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Popplewell, Mr. Tomney, and Mr. Brockway.

Major W. Hicks Beach (Cheltenham)

On a point of order. It occurs to me as one who, I like to think, is very interested in private Members' business that this is the first time I can recall leave to introduce a Private Member's Bill being sought from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of order. It is a point of reminiscence.

Second Reading. What day?

Mr. Benn

Now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am afraid that there is no opportunity of having it now.

Mr. Benn

Tomorrow.