HC Deb 26 July 1974 vol 877 cc2004-16

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Fry

I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 11, line 12, after vehicle', insert: 'other than a moped and'. The amendment is very important. To make a blanket prohibition of parking on verges and footways for all two-wheeled motorised vehicles as well as three- and four-wheeled vehicles is to go much too far, particularly in relation to mopeds. They take up very little room, and unless we are also to prohibit push-bikes I see no point in including them.

The clause could well discourage the use of two-wheeled vehicles, and at this time in our history we should not do that. Apart from the effect on the motor-cycle industry, there are good reasons for encouraging people to use forms of transport other than motor cars. Indeed, a good case can be made out for removing mopeds from classification as motor vehicles. In many other countries where they are not so classified, there is much greater use of this form of individual transport. For example, in France one person in six owns a moped, whereas in this country the figure is one in 150.

The moped is a logical form of personal urban transport which gives maximum door-to-door mobility and which has an excellent safety record, as is shown by the insurance premiums charged. Those reasons, as well as the energy and economy reasons, show that mopeds deserve more encouragement by the Government.

As a means of easing rush-hour congestion, going by moped is better than occupying a large motor car. Although I am always interested in road improvements and road building, it is possible that if we persuaded more and more of our commuting population to use mopeds we should not need to have quite so many road improvements.

Therefore, we should do nothing to discourage the use of mopeds. On the contrary, we should be taking a good step forward in excluding them from the clause.

Mr. Mulley

I understand and sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry).

The history of the clause is that in another place a clause which was more or less a blanket prohibition of parking on verges and footways everywhere was inserted in the previous Bill. I sensed on Second Reading that there was considerable sympathy for the proposition that there should be restrictions on parking on the footways, but that obviously we had to cater for particular circumstances and difficulties. That is what we have tried to do in the clause. It is not a clause that I would have sought to introduce, but I thought it only right to take account of the case expressed in another place and in this House.

In fact, we can meet the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough under subsection (4) where by regulations we can exempt certain classes of vehicles. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows that we have begun discussions with the interests affected. Over many years of successive Governments it has not been the practice to come down firmly on details of this sort and to introduce regulations before consultations have been held with the bodies concerned.

I can give the assurance that we shall consider this matter with a view to the possibility of exemption under the powers already in the Bill. For example, we shall probably want to consider the matter in respect of bicycles or motor cycles. It would be a little difficult if we had just one category written into the Bill when we wish to consider the whole matter. I cannot predict the outcome of our consultations but we shall not be unsympathetic to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I ask the Minister to give a clear assurance that when he considers this matter he will take into account any representations which may be made to him by those representing motor cyclists. Apart from those who represent the moped industry and the many people that use them, there is no doubt that it is in the national interest that machines such as mopeds, which are extremely economic in the use of fuel, should be encouraged as much as possible. I think that a change in the law along the line that has already been indicated, and not confined only to mopeds but to all motor cycles, would be in the national interest.

Mr. Mulley

I am prepared to give the assurance that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) seeks. We began talks with the motor cycle interests only yesterday.

Mr. Graham Page

I hope that the Minister will not look too favourably at these parking matters. Part of the reason for forbidding parking on the footpaths is to ensure that those with short sight or blindness do not fall over the moped, the motor cycle or the pedal cycle that is placed on the footpath. I happen to reside in a road in which there is a great deal of parking not on the footpath but in the residential road. It is frequently found that at night, when there is a slightest wind, motor cycles are blown over on to the pavement. They are a danger in a residential road in which the lighting is not very good. There is also the danger of oil spillage on the pavement from motor cycles. I hope that the Minister will take such matters into account.

I support the clause as an ex-chairman of the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety and I do not want it watered down by the pavements being cluttered with mopeds and motor cycles.

Mr. Mulley

Of course, whatever I try to do I can never be right. That is why was not able to give an unequivocal answer. Naturally we have to consult the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) knows, the clause stemmed from another chairman of the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety.

Mr. Fry

I accept the difficulties in which the Minister finds himself. I am glad that he has taken up this matter with the industry and the interests involved. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I must point out that if people always go around with their eyes shut they will fall over anything on the pavement. In view of the assurance that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mulley

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 11, line 15, leave out `highway, or' and insert: road, or (aa) on any land which is situated between two carriageways of an urban road and which is not a footway, or'

The Chairman

With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 35 and 37.

Mr. Mulley

This group of amendments is quite technical and I hope that it will not be controversial. The intention is merely to change the word "road" to "highway". That will permit the benefits of the clause to be applied to roads that are not technically public roads but are highways to which, either on foot or by vehicles, the public has access. The amendment also applies a prohibition on parking on land between two carriageways. We are trying to bring the Bill into line with the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Bill which was promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in the last Parliament. We are trying to link the Bill with that measure and to strengthen its provisions. The amendment is also in line with legislation affecting the Greater London Council. I hope that this technical drafting amendment will be approved by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 11, line 16, leave out highway ' and insert road'.—[Mr. Mulley.]

The Chairman

The next amendment ment is—

Hon. Members

Where is he?

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has missed the boat.

The Chairman

Order.

Mr. Fry

I must apologise for delaying the Committee. Even I find it difficult to deal with two Ministers at the same time, especially when one is not in the Chamber.

I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 11, line 31, at end insert: 'or (d) that to have parked wholly on the carriageway would have had the effect of reducing the width of the carriageway available to other vehicular traffic to less than 12 feet or such other width specified by the Secretary of State in Regulations'.

The Chairman

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 48, in page 11, line 39, after 'performed', insert: 'or would reasonably have been expected to have obstructed traffic movement'.

No. 49, in page 11, line 41, leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. Fry

Transport interests welcome the exemptions that are already provided in certain circumstances for loading and unloading but are still concerned lest the parking of cars and other vehicles on narrow residential roads should obstruct carriageways, thereby impeding emergency vehicles and vehicles servicing adjoining premises. I believe that this concern is felt by many local authorities, particularly those which have to undertake street cleansing and refuse collection.

I have tabled the amendment because it is a way of trying to help overcome the difficulties to which I have referred. Those who took part in the Second Reading debate will remember the widespread concern that was expressed from both sides of the House. I believe that the Minister himself expressed the wish to prohibit parking near the corners of roads. As a result of those fears the clause was, in my view, quite properly dropped from the Bill. Too often, however, there is still considerable congestion, and I believe that much more needs to be done to provide a freer flow of traffic in our built-up areas.

We should not at this stage enact any legislation which would increase congestion. Congestion is conducive to considerable frustration, to waste of energy and to waste of time. I should have thought that in those circumstances every effort should be made to see that the greatest amount of access is provided. Nothing that we do should limit that.

The points raised in Amendment No. 48 are exactly the same as those covered in Amendment No. 44. In Amendment No. 49 I am asking for an assurance on the question of the unaccompanied lorry driver. I am aware that there is a general understanding about the definition of "in attendance". In view of the tremendous shortage of lorry drivers and the fact that most delivery vehicles have only one person attending them we ought to have some definition of these words.

12 noon.

Mr. Tony Durant (Reading, North)

I support the amendment. The Minister will remember that on Second Reading I raised the question of garaging space on council estates and the difficulties caused by the narrow roads there. Unless the clause is amended there will be a great deal of congestion on these estates. A number of council estates in my constituency have narrow roads. There is a shortage of garaging, because many of the houses were built before the war. But services operate through the estates.

If the clause is not amended and there is a great deal of street parking there will be difficulty in operating the bus service. I have had strong representations from my constituents about this. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the Government are aware of the problem. There is another side to this. The local authorities will shortly be asking the Ministry for more money to provide garages on these estates if this amendment is not carried.

Mr. Farr

I support the amendment. There are houses in my constituency where the driveway is 12½ ft. long and the car is the standard length of 15 ft. The only way people can park their car is by having it protruding 2½ ft. on to the pavement. Sometimes it positively helps the flow of traffic if a driver parks partly off the road and partly on the pavement. I have in mind the situation late at night, when traffic flow through cities can be heavy while the pedestrian flow is light. Then the roads are not wide enough, while the pavements are very wide. Many of my friends and I believe that we are helping the traffic flow by putting a couple of wheels on to the pavement.

We do not have to look far for examples of this. Nearly every night opposite St. Stephen's Entrance to the House of Commons, in Millbank, Members park their cars, and often, to help the traffic flow through that bottleneck, they put the two nearside wheels on to the pavement. I regret that the passing of this clause in its present form would make an offence of what I regard as a rather helpful motoring manœuvre.

Mr. Graham Page

I cannot support my hon. Friends on this amendment. It is not only a question of the blind colliding with things on the pavement. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) misunderstood what I said earlier. It is not a case of people walking about with their eyes shut. I was talking about those who cannot see. They have to use the pavement, and that is not easy when it is cluttered with vehicles or other street furniture.

There is, however, a further point. My hon. Friend talked about congestion on the roads. There can also be congestion on the pavements. I remember that 10 years ago I had a number of photographs taken showing congestion on pavements where cars were parked. I had photographs showing pavements crowded with shoppers experiencing great difficulty in entering shops because of parked cars. Even worse, a number of photographs were taken in Brixton showing mothers having to push prams out into the road to get round cars parked on the pavements because there was not enough room between the car and shop premises. This is a serious risk. We must think of congestion on the pavements as well as on the road.

If we think merely of improving the traffic flow we are likely to cause greater danger to pedestrians. A further point to bear in mind is that pavements were not designed for vehicular traffic. They are damaged when cars or heavy vehicles pass over them. This results in greater expense for local authorities. Further, the services under our pavements—the drains and other utilities—are not protected from the weight of such traffic passing over them. I welcome the clause in general and do not want it to be watered down.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I join the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in supporting this clause. I do so for broadly the same reasons that he gave. Our constituency experience proves that there is urgent need for such a clause. My constituency has a massive problem. We are just outside London People come to my constituency by car and, because they have been encouraged not to travel right into London by car, they park their vehicles in my constituency and get the train into London.

As a result my constituents suffer great frustration. They take their cars off the road and put them into garages. Then they discover that someone has parked his car on the pavement outside their house, blocking their garage. To prevent that happening they decide to park their car on the pavement. They are additionally irked because they still have to pay increased rates as a result of building a garage.

In North Ealing there has been a growing number of accidents, which have included child fatalities, arising from cars being parked on pavements and children running out from behind them to cross the roads. Frequently, cars smash paving stones and old people then trip over the uneven surface, sometimes breaking a limb. There are those who feel justified in suing the local authority for failing to maintain the pavements. This clause would help to ease the situation.

Mr. Hawkins

There are two points of view here, both of which have great merit. I see this situation every day in my constituency. It probably has more cars than a town constituency because, being a rural area, everyone needs a car to get to work. The Minister is in an impossible situation. We have to ask what will happen to those council house tenants who have cars but no garages. Many of our housing estates were built before the war, and the width of the road is insufficient to allow cars to be parked outside the houses. Indeed, some roads are not wide enough to allow delivery vehicles to get down them. Dustbins cannot be collected. It is a terrible problem.

Mr. Durant

Would my hon. Friend include fire engines in the list of vehicles which cannot travel down these roads?

Mr. Hawkins

Certainly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right, although I do not find that many pavements are broken as a result of cars parking on them. It is the heavy vehicles that do the damage.

Mr. Graham Page

I can meet my hon. Friend's case regarding council estates. In subsection (5) there is a freedom to exempt a road where there are the sort of difficulties he has in mind.

Mr. Hawkins

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I do not have the same knowledge of the Bill as he has.

We have here two perfectly valid points of view. We must consider the difficulties of parking in country districts. I understand that at one stage in one of the Bill's migratory processes there was a proposal prohibiting parking on grass verges in country lanes, but often the only way to keep country lanes clear is to allow parking on grass verges, particularly if farm sales or similar events are taking place.

Mr. Mulley

The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has—as he so often did in the last Parliament from this Box—answered effectively and persuasively some of the points raised. If I may deal with the history of the clause, it contained, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said a total ban which was inserted in another place in the last Parliament. That was unacceptable, and we saw, in response to representations from quarters which hon. Members have in mind, the reaching of a compromise, although we realise that some people will remain dissatisfied. I suspect that the friends of the right hon. Member for Crosby in the Pedestrians Association for Road Safety will be critical, because I have made a possibility of there being too many exemptions. The right way to tackle this is for exemptions and exceptions to be decided at local level. It would be nonsensical for me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue directions or instructions as to which roads were regarded as sufficiently narrow to be excepted and which were not. We have provided for the local authorities to make what exceptions are necessary.

With regard to Amendment No. 48, we feel that this point is covered by the phrase "satisfactorily performed" in subsection 3(b) of the clause. We feel that this should be a sufficient safeguard to allow lorry drivers to park on pavements where necessary to carry out loading and similar operations.

Amendment No. 49 relates to a vehicle not being left unattended. We are not arguing that there ought to be two people in a vehicle. We are making an exception only for normal loading and unloading operations, at which times there would be bound to be somebody in attendance. If we stretch the provision so that vehicles are left unattended we shall be back to existing problems. Parked lorries can cause difficulties for people with prams. The principle regarding this matter was endorsed in the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act in the last Parliament.

We have not laid down points about narrowness or characteristics of particular roads. Such matters will be left to local authorities. We hope that they will be given sufficient powers in this respect, and I am confident that they will exercise those powers responsibly.

No one will be completely satisfied but we hope that we have made some attempt to meet the difficulties of road users with vehicles on the one hand, and on the other, people who use pavements. I hope that the Committee will be willing to accept my assurance.

Mr. Fry

In view of the Minister's assurance, and provided that subsection (5) will be adhered to, so that where roads are not suitable orders will not be made, and with the further definition from the Minister on what he means by "unattended," I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

No. 9, in page 12, leave out line 7 and insert: road may by order specifying that road'.

No. 10, in page 12, line 9, leave out from 'it' to end of line 13, and insert: or to any part of it specified in the order, either at all times or during periods so specified. (5A) In England and Wales a local authority, within the meaning of section 36A of this Act, may institute proceedings for an offence under this section committed with respect to a road in their area'.—[Mr. Mulley.]

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Fry

I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 12, line 13, at end insert: '(5A) Traffic signs shall be erected to indicate lengths of highway in regard to which such orders have been made and the effect thereof'. This is a straightforward matter. The purpose is to ensure that road users be left in no doubt as to what regulations apply, and that there should be no misunderstanding. I say this because shortly before the 1970 General Election I was asked to take part in a radio broadcast and I parked my car in an unfamiliar city outside the broadcasting offices. When I came out I found I had been given a ticket. I discovered to my horror that I had parked in a no-parking zone. There were no yellow lines, and the notice about parking was so far away that I had not seen it. I was resentful that I had to pay a fine—but luckily I won in the subsequent election.

I hope that the Minister will give a favourable reply to this proposal.

Mr. Mulley

I have great sympathy with the proposal. We want to ensure, as far as is reasonably possible, that all road users are aware of parking regulations. We are considering this matter, but I am worried because we are also under attack from environmentalists and others, including motoring organisations, about having too many signs, especially in urban areas, with the result that it is difficult for motorists to take them all in.

New legislative power is not required in order to have no-parking signs, but I shall examine this matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. If any difficulties arise in trying to make reasonable provision to meet this point we shall have to see how we can best deal with it—but I do not wish at this stage to write into the Bill provisions for a particular set of traffic signs, especially as in certain cases small areas of road may be involved, and problems would arise. A difficulty arises here because there has not been the usual interval of time between the Committee and Report stages.

I hope that on the basis of what I have said the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his amendment. We shall consider this point. If it is necessary to issue a circular or make regulations, the necessary powers are available.

Mr. Fry

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page, 12, line 37, leave out 'highway' means a highway' and insert 'road' means a road'.—[Mr. Mulley.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Fry

Will the Minister give some explanation of subsection (2)(b) which states: that it was parked in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency…". I would like the Minister to amplify the words "any other like emergency", because many motorists have considerable problems, both personal and mechanical. It is likely that a motor car will break down and considerable difficulty ensue before it can be moved from where it has broken down. The motoring public are entitled to some understanding as to what these words mean.

Mr. Mulley

As hon. Members know, no comments of mine will be of any assistance if there are legal arguments, because it is the words in the Bill that the court will consider. This form of wording has been used in order to permit the widest consideration by the court of any exceptional circumstances. For instance, someone may have to stop his car in a hurry because a lady on board is expecting a baby rather sooner than had been thought. All sorts of contingencies may arise, and it is difficult to foresee them all. If we spelt out a list, others that are not mentioned would be regarded as having been excluded.

This provision is intended to give the motorist who parks his car the benefit of the doubt, but the way in which it is interpreted will be for the courts to decide on any particular occasion. I think that that is better than trying to spell out the circumstances. Giving a list would be of no assistance, because, even if anybody ever reads the OFFICIAL REPORT when it appears—no doubt many months after our debates—the words in the Bill would be all that the courts would consider. No doubt the courts would construe the wording in the widest sense for the benefit of the person concerned.

Mr. Graham Page

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) in this query. The words are not quite as usually used. Using the words "any other like emergency" means that one applies not only the ejusdem generis rule, but the ejusdem very generis rule, because of the word "like". I know that there is not much that we can do about it at this stage of the Bill, but the wording means that the emergency is very restricted and will have to be either saving life or extinguishing a fire, or something like that.

My hon. Friend asked whether it would be a physical emergency or a mechanical emergency. I have no doubt that if a reasonable police constable saw a car parked outside a public convenience he would treat that as a physical emergency, but I am not sure whether it would be ejusdem generis with extinguishing a fire.

Mr. Mulley

That is a very good point. We shall cover breakdowns and accidents by the regulations that the Secretary of State will issue under subsection (4).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to