Clause 2 (Hansard, 13 April 1973)

§ Mr. Sydney Chapman
I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in line 26, leave out 'A' and insert 'Subject to subsection (1A) below, a'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 8, in line 29, at end insert: '(1A) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to 1681 a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court—

(a)that it was parked in accordance with permission given by a constable in uni form; or

(b) that it was parked in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency '.

§ Mr. Chapman
I shall seek to explain what the amendment proposes to do— in fact Amendment No. 8 is the substantial amendment—following a promise of reconsideration which was made in Committee.
Under the present law it is an offence to drive on a pavement but not necessarily an offence to park on it. The purpose of Clause 2 is to make it an offence to park a heavy commercial vehicle wholly or partly on a verge or roadway.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to provide that a person shall not be convicted of an offence under the provision if he proves to the satisfaction of the court either that the vehicle was parked in accordance with permission given by a uniformed constable or that it was parked in contravention of the provision for the purposes of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency. This replaces the rather vaguer phrase "except in an emergency".
The amendment follows an undertaking given in the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Mr. Dykes) in respect of the absolute prohibition of parking on a pavement or a verge except in an emergency to take account of the need in special circumstances to draw up for loading or unloading.
12 noon
The amendment recognises the arguments pressed in Committee. In essence, it recognises that there are special circumstances in which it is necessary for heavy vehicles to park partly or wholly on the pavement to avoid complete obstruction. This applies not only to narrow streets and roads in towns but, just as important, to narrow country lanes. The sponsors of the Bill believe that these circumstances should be special and exceptional rather than general and that they should be exercised under the control of the police either through prior permis- 1682 sion being granted or by direction on the spot.
We do not believe that there should be a blanket dispensation, which would weaken the clause. I believe that in these amendments we have judged the temper and feeling of the House and made a sensible balance between what we would like and what is, on reflection, seen to be realistic. The amendments are put forward with the aim of balancing the deli-cate considerations involved in the need to conserve and improve the environment of our towns and cities and our rural areas, which is becoming increasingly important to a growing number of people, and, at the same time, being sensible about and recognising the importance of the economic and commercial needs of society.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
As is sometimes usual, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) has made a notable contribution. In Committee I moved the amendment which paved the way for this one. I am glad that hon. Members opposite have recognised the common sense of my amendment.
To return to some of the sentiments expressed in Committee, let me point out that I am not advocating that lorries should be allowed to park all over the place. Entry into this occupation ought to be made much more strict. It is far too easy for any Tom, Dick or Harry to put a lorry on the road and call himself a haulier. Road hauliers, warehouse operators and everyone involved with road transport ought to have adequate parking, loading and off-loading facilities.
I recognise that many of our streets were never designed for loading and off-loading and as a result lorries sometimes block the carriageway. In some key city centres they can cause mile-long blockages and bring a town to a complete traffic lock.
What I was proposing in my amendment was that a policeman could give authorisation if he was around. Provided the powers were not widened too much, this was the kind of discretion I wanted to leave in the hands of those on the spot. This amendment meets that point. I am glad that the undertakings given in 1683 Committee have been lived up to. I am sure that this will make a great practical improvement.
I hope that as a long-term aim the Department of the Environment and all central Government Departments and local authority associations concerned with town planning will bear in mind that the bulk of distribution will be done by road. The Swindon, Watford and other experiments have shown that we must allow proper access for road vehicles. This is the only long-term way to deal with the problem. Even if the stuff comes by rail to the railhead, or if it comes by juggernaut up the motorway to the trans-shipment centre, it will be vehicles of perhaps 5 tons unladen weight that will do the deliveries to the shops and the centres involved. I recognise that in the short term these expedients may be necessary but I hope that in the long term we will re-examine the way the industry collects and delivers its goods so that we do not have lorries parking partly on pavements. I hope that that situation will disappear.

§ Mr. Sydney Chapman
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 27, leave out from 'partly' to 'shall' in line 28 and insert: '(a) on the verge of a road; or (b) on any land situated between two carriageways and which is not a footway; or (c) on a footway;'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 9.

§ Mr. Chapman
The House will recall that we have now agreed to insert the exceptions to convictions based upon the fact that a person had prior permission from the police or that a police constable directed him on the spot or that there was some kind of emergency.
Amendment No. 7 defines the areas adjacent to the carriageway to which the clause applies. Amendment No. 9 excludes areas which will be irrelevant if Amendment No. 7 is accepted and also seeks to add a reference to the parallel legislation in Scotland, the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970. Here I am on less sure ground and stand to be corrected by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor 1684 Mackenzie), because my knowledge of highway laws, while it goes a little wider than that mecca of municipal magnificence —Birmingham—does not, I am afraid, cross the border.

§ Mr. Dykes
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 36, leave out 'including a trailer'.
In effect, this is no more than a technical drafting amendment. There are in the House a number of drafting enthusiasts who derive pleasure, irrespective of the subject of a Bill, in playing the parliamentary game of spotting the obvious mistake. There was a mistake in the original text of the Bill, though I confess that it was not obvious to me. The words originally included, "including a trailer", were not required for the purpose of the definition of "heavy commercial vehicles" and were included erroneously when the definition was dealt with. They do not appear in Clause 1(7).

§ Mr. Dykes
I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 11, after 'to', insert 'the said'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

§ Mr. Dykes
Again these are technical drafting amendments. I do not think they need to be discussed. Taken together, their terms are obvious.