HC Deb 21 October 1968 vol 770 cc1037-42

Lords Amendment No. 160: in page 165, line 35, leave out "paragraphs" and insert:

"paragraph— (d) provided that adequate provision for off-street parking facilities in each local authority area has been made then such surplus may be applied to—

Read a Second time.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

With this Amendment go Lords Amendment No. 161, in page 165, line 40, leave out "(e)" and insert "(ii)", Lords Amendment No. 162, in page 166, line 6, leave out "(e)" and insert "(d)(ii)" and Lords Amendment No. 248, in Schedule 14, page 252, line 4, leave out "or (e)" and insert "(i) or (ii)".

Mr. Brown

The Government are anxious to give local authorities greater flexibility in the use of parking meter revenue. At present, they can use revenue only for the provision or maintenance of off-street parking. If this is the only available use for the revenue, we may

well reach a stage when the provision of future off-street parking could result in severe congestion in roads in the area. As the law stands, this is a distinct possibility.

The Government feel that it may well be wiser to spend the money on improved roads, traffic management schemes and better public transport. Arguments have almost been conceded in the other place on the Lords Amendment, but although we cannot accept the Lords Amendment and have, therefore, substituted our Amendment—in Clause 123, page 165, line 35, leave out 'paragraphs: —(d)' and insert 'paragraph:— (d) if it appears to the local authority that the provision in their area of further parking accommodation for vehicles otherwise than on highways is for the time being unnecessary or undesirable, the following purposes, namely— (i)' —I think that we have made considerable concessions to the Opposition in that Amendment and, indeed, in accepting three Opposition Amendments.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Tavistock)

I do not understand why the Parliamentary Secretary could not find it possible, when we first discussed the matter on Report some months ago, to accept the Amendment which has now been put down by the Government in slightly different form. The situation as we outlined it from this side of the House is precisely the situation which is embodied in the Amendment which the Government have put down to their Lordships' Amendment.

We argued not that there should be a permanent and all-time embargo on the use of parking meter revenue for any purpose, but that there should be an embargo until adequate provision had been made. We were told by the Government that that was an unacceptable concept. When this problem arose in another place, exactly the same arguments were put forward by the Government. Now, the Government have slightly reworded what we have said all along and have put it down as their own Amendment.

It would be discourteous of me, in the last speech that I shall make from the Dispatch Box on the Transport Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I could not resist the temptation to unite the House on at least one thing in this last speech of mine after 12 months of speech-making on the subject. We accept the Government's Amendment because we believe, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that it is a direct concession to what we have always argued.

I want to say two things about why it is possible to accept the Government's Amendment and why the words which they have introduced are acceptable. This is an Amendment which has aroused great interest outside the House, and it is important that people should understand our position on the matter. The Government are saying that local authorities shall be permitted to use surplus parking meter revenue provided that a local authority is convinced that the additional facilities in off-street parking are either unnecessary or undesirable.

If they have to prove—and they will have to if the law carries these words—that the facilities are unnecessary, I believe we are entitled to assume that they will prove either that there is too much off-street parking or that there is no demand for it. They would be under statutory obligation to prove that one of these conditions existed. In other cases we have always argued that that would indicate adequate Provision of off-street parking, and we would accept that.

On the other hand, it would be possible for local authorities to argue that additional off-street parking would be undesirable. There was a time when it was the given view in transport matters that there could not come a situation where off-street parking could in itself be undesirable, but all of us are aware that thinking is changing dramatically, because off-street parking can create its own demands, and those demands give rise to considerable congestion in the peak rush hours when all the traffic comes out of the off-street parking and adds to the congestion already in the city streets. So I fully accept that it could well be a justification for not providing additional off-street parking that it was believed it would only aggravate the very problems that the off-street parking is designed to cure.

I think that in those circumstances it is reasonable that local authorities in administering the traffic in their areas, and the Government should have either of these two let-outs for the purpose of the use of the money gathered from parking meters.

We on this side are very grateful that at this late stage we should have added one more concession to that very long list of concessions that the Opposition have extracted from the Government in this very long Bill.

Mr. Bessell

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Bessell

I have not the slightest intention of sitting down because I am told by hon. Gentlemen opposite to sit down. This has been a long debate, and I certainly do not wish to prolong it beyond saying—[Interruption.] If I have fewer interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite in sedentary positions I shall get on much faster. What I rose to do, which may give them some comfort, was to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that, like the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), that I agree that the Amendment introduced by the Government goes a very long way to meet the case that we argued at considerable length, and with some heat at times, in Standing Committee.

This is an important matter. The problem of off-street parking is an acute one. As the hon. Member for Tavistock said, one could create a situation in which greater congestion would result from the provision of off-street parking than by leaving things as they are. There is a very good example of this in New York where too much off-street parking in midtown Manhattan has resulted in the type of congestion to which he, referred.

The hon. Member for Tavistock said that it was his last speech on the Transport Bill. It may well be that these are the last speeches that he and I will make on the Bill, but I suspect that if it receives the Royal Assent he and I will be tussling with it across the Chamber at Question Time at least until the end of this Parliament.

It would be wrong not to thank the Minister for the concession that he has made in this matter, which is obviously a great help.

Sir Clive Bossom (Leominster)

I have misgivings about the Government Amendment because it is still a sell out of the former pledge given to the motoring public, who were told that surplus revenue would be used for off-street parking.

The words "unnecessary or undesirable", in the Amendment, could not be more off the point because off-street parking in all our cities is hopelessly inadequate. A survey done by the British Road Federation shows that no authority has provided completely adequate off-street parking for present or future requirements. Therefore, the Amendment gives local authorities a perfect let-out to do nothing. It is a negative attitude. Local authorities should now be seriously studying how to control parking on highways and studying other parking methods, such as the "parking disc scheme".

The motorist is being short changed. It can be argued that the meter revenue could also be spent on public transport and road improvements, since both are needed and both are highly desirable, but the money should come from the central fund and not from local authority funds. The Government should be showing enthusiasm and giving a lead by making provision for building more multi-storey and underground car parks and for building over railway stations and railway sidings. Instead, they have this negative approach.

It has been hard to extract from the Government what is the exact amount of meter revenue, but the R.A.C. managed to get from the local authorities how much they have collected. Since the scheme was introduced in 1958, they have taken £8½ million and it has cost £6 million to administer, which in my opinion is far too high. The administrative cost could be greatly reduced and then we would have £4 million to £5 million for use in constructing more garages and off-street parking.

I fear that, once we allow the local authorities to use meter income on public transport and highway improvements, they will also try to use the money for other projects such as recreational facilities and amenities. This is really a confidence trick on the motoring public.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 165, line 35, leave out 'paragraphs:—(d)' and insert:

'paragraph:— (d) if it appears to the local authority that the provision in their area of further parking accommodation for vehicles otherwise than on highways is for the time being unnecessary or undesirable, the following purposes, namely— (i)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Forward to