TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS FOR SPECIAL AREAS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. (Hansard, 9 April 1968)

§ Mr. Jopling
I beg to move, in page 26, line 28, after 'area', insert 'of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the area by the public'.
This is an Amendment which I moved in the Committee, and which stemmed from a desire to preserve within National Parks certain wilderness areas where people, vegetation, animals, and everything else, can be preserved from the rush of modern life.
We have several of these areas in the Lake District, which I think are important. The unfortunate thing is that the peace of these areas has been shattered, or open to be shattered, in recent years by the construction and arrival of certain types of motor vehicles, such as Landrovers and other types of four-wheeled vehicles and the scramble motor cycle, which are capable of getting to these almost inaccesssible places.
This is very new phenomenon, and I I think it is essential—and I hope this will be agreed on all sides of the House—to have areas in the countryside where no mechanical vehicle can get. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that powers to prohibit vehicles like this from these areas already existed, and that prohibitions for reasons including noise had already been made. There was some doubt about this and, in Column 740 of HANSARD, he said that he would look at it again, to make sure that these powers can be ensured. We will be glad to hear his conclusions.

§ Mr. Skeffington
We have had another look at this and have consulted the Ministry of Transport which has had great experience of these regulations in different 1301 conditions and in testing their local impact. The Ministry thinks that the positive wording of Clause 25(2), … the purpose of … affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the amenities of the area … would cover the substance of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and is thought preferable to the hon. Gentleman's own wording in securing his objective.
What strengthens that still further is the fact that Clause 141 of the Transport Bill which is now before the House contains a new departure for the Ministry of Transport, in that it would add, as a reason for making a new traffic regulation order, the preservation of the amenities of the area through which a road would run. We think that these two powers will go a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman's objective, if not entirely to cover it.

§ Mr. Peter M. Jackson
I am glad that my hon. Friend has given these assurances, but he is repeating the answers which he gave in Committee and which I did not find very satisfactory. He mentioned the reference in the subsection to the public using the countryside for recreation, but many members of the public want to enjoy the countryside noisily, aid this mere reference does not meet the point as many of us would like it met.
I too would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Column 740, in which he said: The regulating authority will always have to balance what is for the public good in making its order …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February 1968, c. 740.] Obviously, the views of the public good vary enormously. An ardent motor cyclist would see it in terms of better provisions for scrambling, which a botanist would abominate. There are problems of balance.

§ Mr. Jopling
It is important not to get confused between a person going on a scramble motor cycle and organised scrambling, which is very different. There is little danger of organised scrambling in the areas which I have in mind; I am anxious to prevent the itinerant adventurers who want to see whether they can get from one valley to the next by way or a mountain peak.

§ Mr. Jackson
I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. I agree that there is greater danger from the freelance motor cycle scrambler than from organised scramblers.
This proposal would bring to the notice of planning authorities the need to be mindful of the volume of noise which is permissible. I accept that this is declaratory, but in this context even a declaratory statement would be of great value. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in line 29, leave out "area for" and insert "amenities of the area or".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 69, in line 29, at end insert "in the area".

§ Mr. Skeffington
In view of our earlier discussion the House will see that we have gone a considerable way to re-emphasise the powerful, though precise, sentiments expressed in the second part of subsection (2). Reference to "amenities of the area" will go a long way to meeting the point made in Committee by a number of hon. Members, and particularly by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). This is very much in line with the Commission's functions as defined at the beginning of the Bill.

§ Mr. Jopling
As the Clause has been amended, and with the undertakings given by the Parliamentary Secretary on the previous Amendment, the case I made earlier seems to have been fully covered.

§ Mr. Iremonger
I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 27, line 3, at end insert: (5) The Commission may make submissions in respect of the making of a temporary order as respects any highway for a period of not more than seven days in any one year for sporting or recreational purposes, and, if 1303 the Minister so directs, shall make such submissions. (6) Before the Commission or as the case may be the Countryside Commission of Scotland makes any such submissions they shall consult with all local authorities affected and with such other bodies as appear to them to have an interest in those matters, and the Minister may require them to consult with any person or body of persons. Two important points are made in this proposal. The first is that before making any submissions for a traffic regulation order, the Commission must consult with the local authority and other interested bodies. If that consultation does not occur … the Minister may require them to consult with any person or body of persons. Motor cycle and other vehicle users are concerned about these road traffic regulation orders. For this reason the Minister should make it clear that consultation must take place and that, if it does not take place, he will require it to take place.
My second point is in subsection (5) about temporary traffic regulation orders for seven days in any one year for sporting or recreational purposes. I emphasise that this is for only seven days in any one year and it would therefore include practices. It is to cover such events as are arranged by legislation by the Manx Parliament in the Isle of Man, the Tourist Trophy Motor Cycle Races at the beginning of June and the Manx Grand Prix in September. It would cover such things as car rallying, cycle races, horse trials, fell foot racing in the Lake District and cross country athletics generally. It is desirable that this Amendment should allow such national events to take place. They attract tourists apart from the help they give manufacturers of machines for these trials.

§ Mr. Gibson-Watt
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make the same sort of encouraging noises about this Amendment as he made when we discussed the earlier Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referring to motor cycles. From the point of view of public relations, it is essential that the proper bodies, the local authorities, should be consulted.

§ Mr. Skeffington
This again is to some extent the kind of Amendment which probably arises from a feeling of lack 1304 of confidence in the way in which these matters are primarily operated, as I think they should be, by the local authorities concerned. Subject to the overall ministerial power, traffic regulations are a matter for highway authorities, not the Commission. As I said earlier when I reviewed the Commission's resources and personnel, this is not the kind of function which the Commission is equipped to undertake, nor which it would want to undertake.
There are a number of points about the Amendment which I do not understand. It is difficult to visualise what is meant by "sporting purposes". I should have thought that most sporting purposes came within the definition of recreational purposes. Provisions are already made in this connection. If it were thought to mean motor racing on the highways—I have some suspicion that it may be, knowing the source from which the Amendment came—that is prohibited by Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. It would be difficult to accept the Amendment for that if for no other reason.
It would be undesirable for the Minister to direct the Commission to make submissions for an order. That is not the way in which one envisages the Commission operating. Largely, it is a guiding body; it has influence and coordinates, but, except in relation to such matters as are in Clause 3, it has no executive powers. The Amendment is very much contrary to the view of the Opposition that traffic orders and regulations are to be made for the quiet enjoyment of the countryside rather than for the reverse.
For all these reasons the Amendment is not practicable. It is not within the spirit of the relationship between the Commission and the Minister, and I do not think the Commission would have staff to do this work. Subsection (6) would place a very heavy responsibility on the Commission by requiring it to consult all the bodies affected in addition to all the other work it has to do. One understands that there is a problem which motor cyclists and others may have in arranging for their pastimes. I believe that the proper way in which this matter can best be dealt with is through the regional sports councils acting in conjunction with the local authorities. I know 1305 that the hon. Gentleman said that this had been tried before, but it has certainly not been pursued through the regional sports councils because they were not in existence. Relations between the councils and the local authorities are excellent, and I am sure that this is the better way of achieving the real purpose behind the Amendment.

§ Mr. Iremonger
The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point concerning the temporary traffic regulation orders for seven days to allow racing to take place over a closed circuit on a public road.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I do not see how I can deal with that, as racing is prohibited by Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. If it is to be permissible, it must be made permissible in some other way, and certainly not on a public highway.

§ Mr. Iremonger
In view of what the Minister has said, it would be a pity to subject the Government to the humiliation of a defeat, and therefore I shall not press the Amendment unduly. What the hon. Gentleman has said about the regional sports councils is helpful. As he says, these councils have not been in existence long enough for their usefulness to be fully tested.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.