PROVISION OF FOOTWAYS (Hansard, 20 June 1984)

§ Mr. Maxton
I want to make a comprison between clauses 24 and 25. We are talking about a group of people who must be considered by us as legislators when we are debating the whole question of traffic and roads. I refer to the pedestrian—the person who walks. I do not walk frequently. Most hon. Members are car owners and drivers. We tend to concentrate on the concerns of drivers —as I did when I raised the condition of the A74. I know that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has done the same.
Most of us are concerned about the safety of two groups — the children at school, or below school age, who must use the roads and footpaths, and, at the other end of the scale, the elderly. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cunmock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is especially interested in the elderly, at both a personal and political level.

§ Mr. David Marshall
And the disabled.

§ Mr. Maxton
I agree. We are concerned about those who, through age or physical disabilities, are not car drivers and must use the roads as pedestrians. We must ensure their safety. Quite rightly, clause 24 states: 352 A roads authority shall provide, wherever it appears to them necessary or desirable for the safety or convenience of pedestrians so to do, proper and sufficient footways for public roads". Clause 25 uses the word "may" not "shall". I tabled an amendment—unfortunately it was not selected—to alter the word "may" to "shall". Local authorities should have an obligation to consider the matter carefully.
I live in Hamilton, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I apologise to him for raising a local point concerned with his constituency. Hamilton grammar school is built on a split site, with buildings on either side of a busy main road. There have been several accidents—one fatal—where children have been knocked down. It would be sensible to place an obligation on a local authority to provide a footbridge or underpath to ensure the safe travel of the children. I am sure that my hon. Friends could think of many other examples.
I regret that the clause does not cover other forms of crossing for pedestrians, such as pedestrian phasing at traffic light junctions, pedestrian crossings and pedestrian lights. I agree that they are not directly concentrated on these clauses, but these clauses are about safety. There is little point in ensuring that there are proper footpaths on the side of the road if one cannot ensure that people can cross over those roads in safety as well, and the clauses do not cover the problem.
7.30 pm
I know that many of us—I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain them—are not at all sure what criteria the Secretary of State has for giving permission to local authorities for the establishment of pedestrian crossings, pedestrian lights or pedestrian phasing at junction lights. In my constituency, the junction. of Langside drive and Merrylee road is a busy one. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) knows it well. There are traffic lights at the junction, and on several occasions the Newlands community council and the local residents have asked me whether I could get a pedestrian phase put into the lights. I have written to Strathclyde regional council road department and asked it to put a pedestrian phase into the lights, but this has been turned down.
The reason given is that it does not meet the criteria laid down by the Secretary of State. I am told that the Secretary of State's criteria are based almost entirely on the flow of traffic and the number of vehicles. The problem with that crossing is that, literally five houses up from it, there is an old folks' home, Scott house, about which the Munster may know, on Langside drive. The old people who use that crossing find it difficult to get across the road without the pedestrian phase in the lights.
When the Minister winds up the debate, will he give us an explanation of the criteria for these lights and for pedestrian crossings and will he take on board my point that perhaps the criteria should include other things than the flow of traffic and the number of cars using the road? We know that often censuses are taken at the oddest time of the day when there is little traffic, but they should also take into account the number of pedestrians who might use the crossing and the age and physical ability of such people. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at these matters.
All of us have at some time had representations made to us about crossings, by one authority or another. I am 353 sure that all of us could make speeches about this matter if we so wished. I have other examples, but I do not intend to stretch your patience, Mr. Dean, by adding them up and putting them all on record. I merely hope that the Minister will take this point on board and note that safety is not just about providing footpaths or about having the ability to provide subways and bridges, but is about providing other means of crossing for pedestrians and making sure that the criteria for those are properly laid down by the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I wish to follow the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about pedestrian crossings. I take it that this is the nearest point in the Bill at which we can refer to pedestrian crossings, because presumably they fit the description of a footpath. I know that my hon. Friend tabled an amendment that has not been selected. However, the general point is relevant. I hope that the Minister will say something about the problems relating to the provision of pedestrian crossings.
All of us in all our constituencies must have had correspondence with Ministers from time to time about the difficulty of persuading the Scottish Development Department to provide pedestrian crossings. We are supposed to be talking about footways, but footways on opposite sides of the road are of limited value if there is an uninterrupted flow of fast-moving traffic and people have to get from one footway to the next.
I invite the Minister to say something about the criteria applied by the Department to the provision of pedestrian crossings. I have correspondence in a file here—do not worry, I shall not go through it all—dating back to 1976, two years before I came to the House. My predecessor, John Mackintosh, had been in correspondence with the Scottish Office about the need for a pedestrian crossing across the A 1 in the village of Macmerry in East Lothian. I went on with this correspondence. People came from the Scottish Office to measure the traffic flows and sent reports, but, in the end, said that it did not meet the criteria.
As time went on, I came to the conclusion that the only thing that would meet the criteria would be blood on that road. I am happy to say that there has not been a serious accident. Indeed, the problem has been overtaken by events, because shortly the village will be bypassed. Therefore, the Minister will be relieved to hear that I am no longer concerned about that point. However, I hope that he will say something about these wretched critieria, because my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have been involved in similar, protracted and avoidable correspondence. If there is an obvious need for a pedestrian crossing, a reasonable Government Department, a reasonable Minister and reasonable criteria should make it possible for such a pedestrian crossing to be provided. Why is that not happening now, and why is it so difficult?

§ Mr. Craigen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for raising this matter, although, for a moment, I thought that I was on the Cathcart circle. He and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) have gone a wee bit wider than the clause we are discussing. However, I am glad that they have raised this matter.
354 I thought it unfortunate that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart was not selected. I have a vested interest because Lambhill community council is in my constituency. I assure my hon. Friends that that excellent community council has for many years been concerned about safety conditions on certain stretches of the Balmore road.
I am mindful of the points that my hon. Friends have raised about the criteria that are laid down. I assure the Committee that, as that particular stretch of the Balmore road has an old folks' home and there is a disproportionately high percentage of elderly people in the community, these are important matters, and they tend to generate a considerable amount of correspondence and an innumerable number of public meetings. Perhaps the Minister will take into account that we could press this matter a little more on Report. I hope that he will show a little flexibility in his remarks.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has said, this clause is about the provision of footways, and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) have raised matters relating to crossings and lights. These matters are dealt with not in the Bill but in road traffic regulations. However, I shall respond in general terms to the points that the hon. Gentlemen have made.
The criteria are set out in a circular, but I can confirm that vehicle flows are not the only factors taken into account. Other factors considered are the numbers of pedestrians and the road accident record. There is no purpose in providing crossings that are hardly ever used as drivers might increasingly ignore them. That in itself would be dangerous. The criteria are set out in a circular. If hon. Members wish to read it, I am sure that copies can be made available.