WAITING RESTRICTION (CHORLEY ROAD, SWINTON) (Hansard, 10 June 1969)

§ Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

I am sorry at this late hour to delay the House, but I have a rather important constituency matter which I wish to raise, namely, the parking ban in Chorley Road, in Swinton, which is causing a great deal of anxiety to a large number of my constituents. I am an unrepentant believer in the right of a public inquiry at all times, and even though since 1930 a large number and variety of Ministers of Transport of Conservative and Labour colour have used these powers, I still do not think they are morally right. Perhaps I could refer briefly to them.

By section 7(4) of the Roads Act, 1920, the Minister was empowered to make orders prohibiting and restricting the use of roads by vehicles, subject to certain exemptions: (a) on application by a county council, and (b)—this is the important factor—after holding a public inquiry. The situation in 1920 seemed to me to be eminently satisfactory, and had it prevailed today my constituents would have had no cause for worry and anxiety. But, unfortunately, the Road Traffic Act, 1930, revoked the section to which I have referred and replaced it with Section 46, under which the Minister's power to hold a public inquiry became discretionary. It is the discretionary element which has 1422 caused the anxiety in my constituency. Despite the fact that a large number of Ministers of Transport, both Conservative and Labour, have used these powers, I still feel that morally it is indefensible.

For reasons best known to themselves, certain people have made what might be termed inaccurate and misleading statements about this problem which have not been very helpful to me in my fight with the Ministry to obtain a public inquiry. Perhaps we should get the record straight, because it has been stated that this ban is a public scandal which was imposed in the face of strong opposition from the local council by Whitehall by some men in the Ministry of Transport who possibly had never seen the area.

The facts are that the council has never opposed the ban. In fact, it asked for the ban, and it even asked for its extension. When the critical decision was taken in the council chamber, it was carried without opposition. No councillor spoke against it and nobody voted against it. It was the council which wrote to the Ministry of Transport stating that it would like the order for the ban to come into effect on 14th March.

If a public inquiry had been held—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can still find it in his power even at this late hour to grant a public inquiry—it would have allowed both sides to state their views. I have been informed since the ban has been in force that a considerable number of people have been impressed with the smooth working of traffic and believe the ban to be a good thing. Nevertheless, without any doubt, there is considerable opposition to the ban by a large number of people in my constituency, and this is revealed by the very substantial petition which has been handed in to the Ministry.

The ban has been under discussion since 1964. The delay in introducing the ban from 1964 until the present time may have caused tradespeople to feel that it would not be introduced. The time lag may have been a contributory factor in causing people not to ask at the appropriate time for a public inquiry. This point must be borne in mind.

Despite statements to the contrary, the council minutes and the correspondence clearly reveal that the parking of heavy 1423 vehicles in Chorley Road has been causing anxiety for some time and was the larger single major factor behind the imposition of the ban in the first instance.

I should like the Minister to look again at the type of notice which is printed to indicate that a ban is to be introduced. They look like official or semi-official documents and are not easily understood by the public at whom they are directed. I hope the Ministry will look again at the wording and the publication of the ban to make sure that it is explicit enough to allow ordinary people to know what action to take.

In the correspondence that has passed between the Minister and some of my constituents, Mr. Charnley's letter reveals strong and clear arguments why there should have been a public inquiry. Mr. Charnley may not in terms, have asked for a public inquiry, but it is implicit in the wording of his letter. Therefore, his letter should have been given further consideration.

I realise that the council asked for the ban to be introduced, to come into force on 14th March. But in response to a letter by Mrs. Adams, a shopkeeper in the street—a letter signed by over 30 fellow shopkeepers—I approached the Ministry to ask them to delay the ban and to hold a public inquiry so that both sides could state their views. The council agreed to support me in my request.

I appreciate that all due procedures have been followed, but I am an unrepentant believer in the need for and importance of a public inquiry into each and every parking ban in which there is the slightest opposition. In a democracy people who either approve of or disapprove of a ban should be given the opportunity to state their views clearly. I very much hope that the Ministry will agree to hold a public inquiry.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting his case so clearly. I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining fully why it was necessary to impose restrictions on waiting by vehicles in Chorley Road, Swinton.

1424 I would first remind my hon. Friend that Chorley Road is part of the A.6 London to Carlisle trunk road and is, therefore, an important part of the national freight route system along which the free flow of traffic must be maintained.

I am, of course, well aware that in those cases where a trunk road passes through an urban area, such as is the case at Swinton, there can be some clash of interest between the need to keep traffic moving and the interests of local residents and traders. In these circumstances, I am very conscious of the need not only to impose the minimum of restriction necessary to achieve the desired result, but also, in framing the regulations, that local interests should be fully consulted at an early stage and their views taken into account.

For some years parked vehicles at or near the junction of Chorley Road and Station Road caused congestion and impeded the free flow of traffic. With the ever increasing number of vehicles coming on to the roads this congestion gradually got worse and it became apparent that something would soon have to be done to ease the position. In particular, in recent times parked vehicles at this junction hampered the proper operation of traffic lights and prevented the safe and free flow of traffic on this busy trunk road.

As long ago as 1964, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, we thought that some restrictions on waiting would have to be introduced. The divisional road engineer—who is closely in touch with the local situation and who knows his area in some detail—therefore discussed on the site what we had in mind with officers of the Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council. He also consulted the police.

Following these discussions the Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council approved in principle that measures were needed to deal with the situation, and at a subsequent meeting held on 10th January, 1966, the council endorsed the proposals. Further consideration to the scheme was given by the divisional road engineer, the council's officers, and the police and finally on 10th June 1968 the town clerk wrote to the divisional road engineer confirming that the council had no objection to the revised proposals, 1425 which had now been designed to cover the stretch of trunk road from Station Road to Cemetery Road. This was an extension of the scheme originally proposed in 1966. In passing, I should tell my hon. Friend that the council asked for the extension of the scheme.

In September, 1968, a public notice of the intention to make the necessary traffic regulation order was published in the local press and in the London Gazette and, in addition, the local council, acting as our agents, posted notices on the length of road concerned. Three weeks were then allowed for the receipt of any objections to these proposals.

My hon. Friend has made reference to the type of notice that is posted on lamp posts and so on in the proposed area of restriction. To some extent this is a legal document. Nevertheless, I will look into the matter to see whether we can simplify it for the general public.

Following this wide local publicity, only six objections were received, each of which came from local traders who feared the imposition of these restrictions would have an adverse effect on their trade. None of the objectors mentioned or sought a public inquiry. In view of the nature and number of the objections received, we did not consider that such an inquiry would produce any new evidence and considered that it was not, therefore, justified. Having regard to the large numbers of orders which are now made every year, it would be administratively unworkable to hold a public inquiry into each and every order, as was at one time required under the 1920 Roads Act. It would mean well over 1,000 inquiries a year on traffic orders alone. My hon. Friend will realise that conditions have changed very much since the days of the 1920 Roads Act.

My right hon. Friend decided to make the order as advertised and to impose waiting restrictions from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily but, except between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive, to allow vehicles to wait to load and unload. The decision to make the order was conveyed to each of the objectors on 8th November, 1968, and during the four months that elapsed between that date and the making of the order there was no further reaction either 1426 from the original objectors or anyone else.

The order was made on 6th March, 1969, and it was only after that date that we received the first request for a public inquiry. This was contained in a letter from one of the local traders—a newsagent—which was forwarded by my hon. Friend. Since the order came into operation there has been a considerable volume of correspondence concerning these restrictions, but no further evidence has come to our notice which had not already been fully considered.

I am given to understand that local residents and traders have said that they are now willing themselves to meet the full costs of a public inquiry if my right hon. Friend would agree to its being held. But the question of cost is not the real issue. If we thought that a public inquiry was necessary or desirable, public funds would be made available, but this is not the case. We believe that very full publicity has been given to these proposed restrictions over the past four years, and that no new facts would be brought to light at such an inquiry. I again emphasise that these restrictions have been imposed only following full and detailed investigation on the site by the Minister's local representative in full collaboration with the local authority and the police.

I would make the point that for a number of traders conditions are no more difficult since the imposition of the restrictions because a number of traders' customers were already prevented from parking their cars in front of their premises owing to parked lorries. I should make it clear that waiting is still permitted in the adjacent side-streets. An off-street car park is available between Crompton Street and Church Street, about 300 to 400 yards east of the shops concerned.

It is true to say that with the ever-increasing volume of traffic coming on to our roads it is difficult not to cause a clash of interests when taking the steps necessary to deal with traffic congestion. This is always a problem, and often an inescapable one. It causes us particular concern, and we always seek to find the solution which will bring benefit to the greatest number of people. I believe 1427 that the restrictions we have been discussing are the best answer for Chorley Road.

I should like, now, to make some reference to inflammatory and irresponsible statements reported in the local Press. The Manchester Evening News of 12th April this year reported a local Tory councillor as having said: Even though the Swinton and Pendlebury Council had opposed the ban it had still been imposed. I now quote from the minutes of the highways and lighting committee of the local council at its meeting on 13th May, 1968: Details were submitted of the No Waiting and No Loading and Unloading Order proposed by the Ministry of Transport in respect of Chorley Road, Swinton.… It was resolved that the divisional road engineer's proposals be approved. There is no question there of any opposition from the council.

The Swinton Journal of 17th April last, reporting a protest made by local shopkeepers, quoted a London Tory as saying: 1428 The fight is not with the local council. It is with Whitehall who seem to be afflicted with this yellow line madness. Some man in the Ministry of Transport who possibly has never seen the area felt that he knew better. I strongly resent someone domiciled in London speaking in those derogatory terms about civil servants in my Department. I say without fear of contradiction that the D.R.E. and his staff know their area very well indeed.

My hon. Friend has faithfully put to me the case made by his constituents about the need for a public inquiry, but for the reasons which I have outlined this evening I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will now understand why there will be no inquiry. The shopkeepers concerned might well find, as shopkeepers all over the country have found, that parking restrictions bring increased business when people find that they can get about the streets in safety.