HC Deb 12 May 1967 vol 746 cc1975-86

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks (Bebington)

The closing moments before the Recess are not the happiest time in which to detain the House, but my hon. Friend will know that my subject is of importance to a large number of my constituents, and I assure him that they will read this debate, and in particular his remarks, with great interest.

On 1st December, 1966 the Roads Committee of the Birkenhead County Borough Council considered, and rejected, the objections which had been made to its proposals for a traffic waiting order on a section of Woodchurch Road, Birkenhead, which forms the border of my constituency. Twelve letters of objection, and petitions with 121 signatures, were before the committee, a substantial volume of protests which indicated the anxiety of local tradespeople for their future livelihood. Most of the opposition was to the proposal to ban parking during the off-peak period, a proposal which the Chief Constable of Birkenhead had stated was premature and unnecessary for a further two years. Nevertheless, the committee felt that, on balance the Order should be confirmed with the inclusion of off-peak periods. It was claimed that this would halve the accident rate, cater for the heavy traffic flows at off-peak periods on Fridays and Saturdays, and avoid subsequent need to modify the order.

The traders had previously approached me as their Member of Parliament, and I had written to the Roads Committee expressing my anxieties for their future business. The road concerned is a busy and important through route, but, equally, it is here straddled by a busy and important suburban shopping centre which has come to cater for an extensive area. Since the local authority appeared to be making no provision for off-street parking facilities commensurate with those facilities about to disappear, I felt that my intervention was justified. The Roads Committee nevertheless decided—and I would never pretend that such decisions could ever be easy—that traffic considerations, not unrelated to the mid-Wirral Road which I debated here with my hon. Friend on 14th April last, must take priority.

I do not wish to pursue any further the merits of the particular order, but I would like to turn now to the subsequent history of the attempt by the traders to invoke the aid of the Minister on appeal. It is this history which disposes me to feel that larger issues are at stake, in particular the criteria which the Ministry either does, or should, employ when asked, on appeal, to pass judgment on a local authority's traffic regulation orders.

My experience over Woodchurch Road persuades me that the present situation is unsatisfactory, and the Ministry itself seems uncertain of its powers. This, at least, is the inference which I have drawn from the events which followed 1st December, and I would now like to summarise them.

The Roads Committee saw the traders on 12th January, when a deputation was acquainted with the reasons which had led to a rejection of the petitions and protests. Although there was no question at this meeting of the Committee rescinding its previous decision, the traders again argued their case strongly, and I personally addressed a further letter to the Committee urging a phased introduction of the "No waiting" order. But by now it was plain that the Committee, for reasons which I do not seek in any way to discredit, was not to be moved——

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

Mr. Brooks

The Committee, for reasons which I seek in no way to discredit, was not to be moved, and the traders thereupon asked me to intervene with the Minister.

I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 23rd January, saying that I was particularly eager to clarify the power of the Minister to accept appeals against decisions of a local Highways Authority which adversely affected the livelihood of local residents, and especially local tradespeople. I asked whether confirmation of traffic orders was automatic, or whether the local people had any court of higher appeal at Ministry level. I concluded by drawing a tentative parallel with planning appeals, where a developer whose application is rejected can go to appeal, claiming that his interests are being handicapped by the local authority. In the case of traders, who, unlike many developers, are already living in the area and contributing to the rate fund, the same right of appeal against potentially damaging decisions of the local authority seemed justifiable.

On 10th February, I received a reply from my hon. Friend, which included the following passages: Waiting restriction orders generally do not require confirmation by the Minister so we anticipate that action in this case will be entirely local. Under Section 27(3) of the 1960 Act, however, the Minister does have powers to revoke, vary or amend any traffic order made by a local authority, and it is open to anyone to ask her to exercise these powers in a particular case. But in practice the Minister very rarely finds this necessary. The Minister went on to describe how a council could advertise its proposals in the local Press, and, depending on the nature and weight of objections received, would then decide whether or not to hold a public inquiry to enable the proposals to be impartially examined in greater detail. According to this statement, as I understand it, the onus of determining whether to hold a public inquiry falls upon the council. This seems to me quite unsatisfactory. Again taking the parallel of planning appeals, it is as though the planning authority should decide whether its negative decision under development control should run the gauntlet of an appeal and public inquiry. If an impartial examination is indeed to be sought, then an impartial body—and this can be only the Minister—must have the power to order such an examination.

But the position, the more I looked into it, became steadily more confusing. In Section 27(3), the clause mentioned by the Minister's letter of the 10th February, I read: Any such order … may be revoked, varied or amended … by order made, by statutory instrument, by the appropriate Minister, after giving notice to the local authority and holding, if he thinks fit, a public inquiry. The onus, if lawyers' English means what I think it means, is placed upon the Minister to order a public inquiry. I hope that my hon. Friend will clear up what seems to me an apparent discrepancy between the procedure outlined in his letter and that indicated in the Section of the 1960 Act to which he drew my attention.

But sorting out whose finger is on the trigger, as it were, is less important than determining when, how and why the trigger should be pulled; or, to put it more precisely, upon what criteria should the Minister refuse to confirm a traffic order, or subsequently to revoke it if it is an order not subject to his confirmation in any case? Perhaps we should ask also why it is such a very rare event, as the Minister said, for confirmation to be other than automatic. Are we to assume that local authorities are the fount of all wisdom when they make such orders? I must avoid this tempting train of thought, however, and focus upon the main question: the criteria to justify revocation or amendment of a traffic order.

The Minister himself, in his letter to me, suggested what I would have regarded as a most important criterion, namely, the provision of off-street parking facilities. He said: I am surprised to hear that the Birkenhead Council has made no proposals to provide off-street parking facilities. It would appear necessary for off-street parking to be associated with the no-parking restrictions, and it would be for the Council to provide it. I am bound to regard this comment, the spirit of which I wholly welcome, as one with highly important implications for the country at large. As my hon. Friend said, councils have adequate powers to provide such off-street parking under Section 81 of the 1960 Act, and he suggested too that paragraphs 18 to 24 and 76 of Planning Bulletin No. 7, "Parking in Town Centres", were "particularly appropriate" to the Woodchurch Road case.

The problem, however, is less one of powers than of the will and incentive to exercise them. If local authorities, faced with the mounting and grave problems of traffic congestion, respond with buckets of yellow paint—under the encouragement of my right hon. Friend—they will hardly make the provision of off-street parking facilities a high, and expensive, prority without similar encouragement from her.

But if, as my correspondence seems to suggest, confirmation of traffic orders is to remain a pretty automatic procedure, then I doubt if we shall see nearly enough attention paid to providing off-street parking commensurate with that lost due to restriction orders. We shall, in short, have planning without tears; we shall have short-term remedies without—and even at the cost of—long-term solutions. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to look at this problem in his Department.

Of course, it is far from simple; an obvious difficulty concerns the allocation of cost—and probably very high cost—incurred in making such parking facilities. At least three interests are involved: the local authority, the tradespeople whose future may be jeopardised, and perhaps other local residents, and—at least where the road is classified—the Ministry. But if the Ministry seems prepared to will the end—and my hon. Friend's statement of regret over Woodchurch Road surely justifies such a view—then it needs to give a lot more thought to willing the means, including an equitable allocation of cost.

I also suggest that the Minister consider a procedure where restriction orders, when challenged locally, should be confirmed only where the local authority can either establish that it intends to provide appropriate off-street parking, or that such provision is impossible or wholly unrealistic in the particular vicinity. I realise the risk of gumming up the process with red tape, and I do not want to preach an unrealistic gospel of perfection; but if my hon. Friend wants off-streeting parking, then some such stimulus will have to be found.

I now turn briefly to the later history of the Woodchurch Road dispute, for events have continued to arouse my sense of dissatisfaction with present procedures. The Birkenhead Council confirmed the "No waiting" order on 15th February, and the date of 8th May was announced for the introduction of the order. The tradespeople, however, then addressed a letter to my right hon. Friend, seeking her intervention under Section 27(3) of the 1960 Road Traffic Act. On 27th February I also wrote to the Minister, supporting the case made by my constituents, and touching upon many of the wider aspects I have tried to indicate this afternoon. On 16th March I heard that my hon. Friend had asked the divisional road engineer to make some local inquiries, and that these inquiries, understandably, might take some time.

I naturally assumed, and so indicated to my constituents, that nothing would happen until the D.R.E. had made his report and the Minister had given her decision. However, on 13th April Corporation workmen turned up to mark the double yellow lines, and only strong protests by the traders, leading to telephone conversations with Manchester and London, stopped the operation, at least for the time being. My hon. Friend will be aware of my views about this action, as I wrote to him on the 16th in the full flush of righteous curiosity. My hon. Friend's prompt and helpful reply contained some nevertheless perplexing remarks. He said: Although I am very happy to ask our divisional road engineers to enquire into local traffic problems, the Minister cannot insist, where the councils are acting entirely within their own powers, that further action should be suspended while our inquiries are in train. This raises one or two questions. First, should not the Minister have powers to insist that action should be suspended while an inquiry is proceeding? I would have thought this a useful safeguard, if only to avoid the costs of erecting signs, say, which the Minister might then order to be removed. Secondly, is it true to say that the councils are acting entirely within their own powers, when such Orders are subject to revocation or amendment by the Ministry. Thirdly, what inquiries do the divisional road engineers carry out in practice?

A Merseyside reporter who telephoned Manchester to clarify this point, gained the impression that no one would be specifically sent to look at the area. If this is so, I would regard it as utterly unsatisfactory, and making a mockery of the Ministerial inquiry.

Small wonder, if this is the sort of examination carried out, that only very rarely does the Minister refuse to confirm traffic orders made by local authorities.

The reply from my hon. Friend put it another way. He said that the Minister's reserve powers are for use only in the most drastic circumstances. In order to get the sort of co-operation we need from local authorities, it is vital that we should not lightly intrude, or even give the impression of wishing to do so, in matters which are within their own jurisdiction. This again begs the whole question of the boundaries of local authorities' jurisdiction.

I do not wish, however, to end on a churlish note. My hon. Friend has made very great efforts to meet the case put by my constituents, and I and they are very grateful for the various letters he has written, not only to me, but also to the local authority concerned.

Indeed, it is only because of the lengths to which he has gone in responding, that the inherent ambiguities which I have tried to describe became apparent to me. Perhaps they became apparent to him. Perhaps I may quote the final sentences from my hon. Friend's letter of 25th April. He said: I am satisfied, on my present information, that the circumstances at Birkenhead do not justify the use of the Minister's reserve powers. This is not to say that we view their proposals as entirely satisfactory. The point you stress about the need for providing offstreet facilities is indeed important, and we have written to the Council. I am sure that it gives neither him nor me any joy to appear to conflict with a local authority which is trying to solve problems which are as intractable as they are persistent.

This is a dispute in which there are no villains; simply the enormous difficulties of coping with a motor age in which the search for solutions seems to be like loking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

4.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

As usual, my hon. Friend has put a cogent case on behalf of his constituents. I hope that what I have to say by way of explanation this afternoon will go some way to satisfy him and his constituents about the way in which we view this matter.

Last year the Birkenhead Council imposed waiting restrictions and peak-hour loading/unloading bans on many of the approach roads to the Tunnel. A short length of Woodchurch Road was then restricted, to protect a junction.

These earlier restrictions evoked strong protest from traders. A public inquiry was held, and the Inspector reported in favour of the restrictions. He recommended that the Council should conduct a survey to see whether any traders would be unable to carry on. The Council did this and concluded that while hardship would be caused, no trader would be prevented from continuing his business.

It considered that the need for the restrictions outweighed individual hardship. The Council therefore made the order without special exemptions for traders.

The restrictions now proposed prohibit waiting on either side of the road between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day, excluding Sundays, except at the approaches to two main junctions where the prohibition is at all times of the day and week. They contain exemptions for vehicles picking people up or setting them down, and for vehicles being used for loading and unloading, and for certain other categories.

The Council's reasons for the restrictions imposed last year, and these new ones were to improve the traffic flow to and from the Mersey Tunnel and through the centre of the town, and to reduce the risk of accidents. The section of Woodchurch Road affected by the new restrictions has, according to the Council, an accident rate double that for the rest of Woodchurch Road. It says that in about half the accidents in a recent survey period parked cars were involved.

The Department's divisional road engineer has examined the merits of the Council's order—he is well acquainted with the district—from the aspects of traffic flow and safety and reported that he does not consider the use of the Minister's reserve powers justified. The Birkenhead Council has carefully assessed the local traffic situation. My right hon. Friend, on present information, has no evidence to suggest that the council's judgment is at fault or anything seriously to warrant her intervention in the mattter of these traffic restrictions. It is fully entitled to judge for itself what corrective measures are necessary and, in this case, to implement them.

Section 26 of the Act gives powers to local authorities to make Traffic Regulation Orders. Section 27 provides that, with certain specified exceptions, such Orders are subject to the Minister's confirmation. The Birkenhead Order is quite clearly one of the exceptions, and so it has acted entirely within its own powers. We want local traffic problems to be handled by local traffic authorities. We do not want a situation where every local traffic order has to be referred to the Ministry for examination. My right hon. Friend intends to place more responsibilities in future upon local authorities and to allow them to get on with the job of traffic management.

I agree that the Minister has this power under Section 27(3) to revoke or vary a local authority order. As I said in a letter to my hon. Friend, these are clearly intended as powers of last resort, to be used only where less drastic measures would clearly be ineffective.

My hon. Friend referred to the criteria for using the reserve powers, and asked what these were. In general, we should revoke or vary a local authority order if, for example, we were convinced that it was thoroughly ill-conceived on traffic or safety grounds, or that any inconvenience or proven hardship caused was so great as to be out of all proportion to the benefits expected to be achieved by the restrictions.

In practice, traffic authorities undoubtedly use their powers reasonably, and with considerable restraint, in some cases with too much restraint. My right hon. Friend sometimes complains that some traffic authorities are not sufficiently active in the imposition of orders. My hon. Friend refers to the apparent helplessness of the Minister where a local authority has laid an order and insists on carrying it into effect, even while the Minister is considering representations against it.

The point is that were the representations of such significance as to clearly warrant the use of the reserve powers, the Ministry would immediately inform the Council that the order would be revoked as soon as it came into effect. My right hon. Friend has that power if it is clear from the representations made to her, that the restrictions are not justified on traffic or safety grounds, and that the hardship which could be caused was unreasonable. In our opinion the Birkenhead case was far from that category.

The Council has agreed to delay the coming into operation of the order while it considers the views which we have put. I have said, however, that we are not happy on the score of parking facilities for cars displaced by the restrictions. We understand that the Council has no intention of providing off-street accommodation, on the grounds that there is ample space in the side roads off Woodchurch Road, in which motorists can park if they want to.

We do not regard this in general as a satisfactory solution. In our view, street parking restrictions and off-street parking provision are two sides of the same coin. They must go hand in hand, they should be planned together. Otherwise unnecessary hardship and inconvenience is caused, and enforcement becomes difficult.

But it must be recognised that off-street car parks are not likely to be used unless there are restrictions on street parking. Some roads are by their nature and location eminently suitable for controlled parking, and in some places their use for parking is unavoidable. The side roads off the part of Woodchurch Road affected by the recent restrictions are wholly residential and not particularly wide. We should view with concern any proposal to use this type of road as a permanent substitute for off-street car parking, unless circumstances offered no alternative.

We have written to the Birkenhead Council expressing our views on this matter of parking facilities for cars displaced by the waiting restrictions, and seeking more information on the subject. The Council has promised to consider our views and in the meantime has instructed their surveyor not to proceed, for the moment, with the work of erecting signs and painting the waiting restriction lines on the road. I undertake to keep my hon. Friend in touch with any further developments in this dialogue between ourselves and the Council.

With regard to off street parking we are, of course, currently resuscitating the powers in the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, which lapsed last year, under which a local authority can use compulsory purchase powers and seek loan sanction for building a car park as part of a mixed development, designed to bring in enough income to cover the cost of providing and maintaining the car park itself.

We would all like such controls to be unnecessary. Ideally, shopping areas should be free of cars with all their attendant problems. We all know about pedestrian precincts, which are commonplace in the new towns and in major re-developments. Experiments are already taking place to see how far existing streets can be used in the same way. Unfortunately existing legislation was not designed with this end in view and we cannot at present go as quickly as we should wish. That is why we intend to seek more flexible powers in future legislation.

In the meantime, traffic authorities can only seek the best available compromise solution—one which achieves maximum advantages in the way of improved safety the free movement of traffic, and the preservation of environment, with the mini- mum hardship and inconvenience to all concerned.

A point which must not be overlooked in considering the Birkenhead restrictions generally is that they can always be reviewed and modified. It has been argued that new development, such as the proposed Mid-Wirral road with which my hon. Friend is concerned, and the new Wallasey Tunnel may result in reduced traffic in Woodchurch Road. This is by no means certain to be the result, but if it were, these restrictions could be speedily reviewed and quickly relaxed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Four o'clock till Wednesday, 31st May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of yesterday.