HC Deb 20 June 1984 vol 62 cc360-9
Mr. Allan Stewart

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 23, line 33, at end insert— '(1) In subsection (1) above, the reference to roads, or proposed roads, which will be maintainable by the local roads authority does not include a reference to—

  1. (a) an existing road which is a prospective public road within the meaning of the Public Utilities and Street Works Act 1950;
  2. (b) a new road in course of construction, or to be constructed, other than by or on behalf of the authority; or
  3. (c) a road which would be maintainable by them only if application were made to them under section 15(1) of this Act.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean)

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment No. 87, in page 23, line 34, leave out `may' and insert 'shall'.

Amendment No. 88, in page 23, line 36, at end insert 'and which in his opinion ought to be lit'. Government Amendment No. 90.

Mr. Allan Stewart

Perhaps I might catch your eye later, Mr. Dean, to respond to points that are made in respect of amendments Nos. 87 and 88. Amendments Nos. 86 and 90 are intended to remove any conflict between clauses 13 and 20, which enable a local roads authority to require lighting to be installed in a private road or new road before adding the road to the list, and clause 34, which confers a duty on the local roads authority to provide road lighting on roads that will be maintainable by it. Essentially, the amendments clarify the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 89, in page 23, line 38, leave out 'private road' and insert 'road, or proposed road,'.

No. 90, in page 23, line 39, at end insert `and as regards which no duty is imposed on them by subsection (1) above.'. No. 91, in page 23, line 41, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert `land'. No. 92, in page 23, line 44, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.——[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

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

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the important subject of lighting on our roads. This is one of the few opportunities that, we have to discuss it and the benefits to the community that would arise from a considerably increased programme of street lighting provision. The community would benefit from substantial savings in terms of road safety, lives saved and serious injuries prevented. There would also be massive reductions in crime, especially street crime. I should have thought that that would be attractive to Conservative Members, small though their number is today.

I am interested in lighting, for several reasons. One is that I have a long-standing interest in road safety. I think that most right hon. and hon. Members know that. Some are considerably pained by my long-standing interest in road safety, but my interest in seat belts perhaps kept me alive for the dubious benefit of the House and the country and enabled me to stand here tonight. I also have a constituency interest in the subject. Recently, with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), I wrote a pamphlet called "Light up the Roads", which was published by the Lighting Industry Federation. I recommend it to hon. Members. Someone promoted it by saying, "Enjoy a good read." In case hon. Members have not read it, I shall précis its contents in the next few minutes.

First, however, I shall quote the evidence given by the Department of Transport to the Select Committee on Transport, which is presently considering road safety. In March, 1983 the Department of Transport submitted evidence on street lighting and said: The accident rate during the hours of darkness is worse than in daylight … In general the accident rate in relation to distance travelled during the hours of darkness is nearly double that for the hours of daylight. Accidents at night are also generally more likely to produce fatalities and severe personal injuries". Although road safety concerns many people, we tend to underestimate the carnage that occurs on our roads. Despite the undoubted improvement resulting from the mandatory use of seat belts in cars in the past year, nearly 20 people are still killed every day. Moreover, a substantially greater number are seriously injured, maimed, mutilated or crippled for the rest of their lives.

The country suffers the human pain and agony associated with road accidents and considerable financial loss. The Department of Transport estimates that each fatal accident costs the nation £160,000 in hospitalisation costs, police costs, road traffic costs and in the cost of losing a productive individual from the community. With the cumulative number of fatalities on the roads, there is clearly a substantial cost to the community as a whole.

If all these accidents were purely accidents—random events which were not preventable—that would be a meaningless statistic, but they are not. Accidents are preventable, some at inordinate cost which the community would not consider reasonable to bear, while others can be prevented at a minimal cost to personal liberty. The compulsory wearing of seat belts was one means by which we reduced the number of fatal accidents and substantially reduced the number of serious injuries at the cost of a small price to the personal liberty of people who are now obliged to wear seat belts.

We are considering in this clause an area in which substantially greater benefits could accrue to the community by small items of public expenditure. If there were more expenditure on street lighting—if we were willing as a nation to invest more in that—there would be a reduction in the number of road accidents. That is one of the most important aspects of the subject, but it is not the only one, because similar evidence by the Department of Transport to the Select Committee last year made it clear that the interaction of lighting and crime was an important consideration, and I shall come to the question of how street crime would be reduced if there were substantially greater street lighting.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is my Member of Parliament, will be interested to hear the case that I am putting forward, and I look forward to reading in the Stirling Observer his strong support for massive public investment in street lighting, and to the reduction in crime that would arise from it.

The first leg of the argument for an increased programme of street lighting is in relation to road accidents. To use the example of motorways—because they come directly under the funding of central Government and not local authorities—that is an area where an impact could be made immediately by the Minister. The Department of Transport has estimated that to light all of the existing unlit miles of motorway in Britain would cost, at the least, £90 million and, at the most, £105 million. I remind Conservative Members that that is even less than the price of one frigate for the Royal Navy, the sort of expenditure for which they cheerfully voted last night, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has a vested interest in as many frigates as possible being built by Yarrow Shipbuilders.

It has been authoritatively estimated that the cost of power and maintenance — the running costs of that additional lighting of the motorways — would be between £5.5 million and £9 million a year. I believe that most people who drive on motorways would regard that as a small cost compared with what they might have expected it to be, remembering that it must be measured against the potential benefits of that expenditure.

I represent in Hamilton constituency a slice of the M74. Some of it is lit—indeed, some of it is almost floodlit—at intersections, while other parts of it are completely unlit. If one drives on the M74—as is the case on any part of the motorway system—motoring from one of the ultra-lit intersections on the road to an unlit section, especially in rain, the danger is immediate and is obvious to any driver. It is like driving into a tunnel without the lights being on, and there is little doubt that there is a correlation between the dangers and the fatalities that are a consequence. Therefore, for a small outlay, each motorway mile in Britain could be inexpensively lit and the nation would be wealthier, not only in terms of the people who would not be killed, but in terms of the consequent reduction in cost to the community.

The evidence of the Department of Transport to the Select Committee was clear about studies conducted into the effects of increased lighting. It said: Of 12 motorway and freeway studies, five showed that lighting could be effective in reducing night accidents. In five of these studies, casualty accidents reduced by up to 60 per cent.

8.15 pm
Mr. Michael Forsyth

Has the hon. Gentleman discovered, in carrying out his researches, whether there is any evidence that the pattern with street lighting would be similar to that observed with seat belts; that initially there is a reduction in the number of accidents, but because people feel safer and more confident they drive faster and more recklessly and the accident rate goes up? We might light all the motorways and the accident rate might go down for a while, but would we find people driving faster, perhaps late at night in the wet, and that, because of their increased confidence, the number of accidents might, in the long run, increase?

Mr. Robertson

That argument has no base whatever. It was put forward when we were discussing seat belts. It was said that the accident rate would go up eventually because people would feel safer and more secure and would, as a result, drive more recklessly. The argument that was put forward to that effect, by a geographer, proved manifestly baseless and the statistics were found to be groundless. On a free vote, the House made its decision based on strong arguments that were put to hon. Members, and that happened before the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) arrived here.

If the rules of order permitted me to expand on the arguments for compulsory seat belt wearing and the weakness of the type of argument that the hon. Gentleman has adduced, I could demonstrate more than adequately that there is no reliable, sensible evidence to suggest that there is any force in the hon. Gentleman's argument in any of the countries where there has been substantial experience of compulsory seat belt wearing. Any theory that might be advanced against the wearing of seat belts would be similarly inapplicable to the case that I am discussing for increased lighting.

Serious research has been done over lengthy periods, and it is clear that the additional safety from better lit highways is permanent and productive, and I shall detail more of the evidence from sources which, I am sure, will be completely persuasive to the House. I speak in the sure and certain hope that at the end of my speech the Minister will announce immediate public investment in street lighting. I have that faith because, for the first time in a long time, I am making an uncontroversial speech to the Minister, who can only respond with favour to me.

The problem with street lighting, as is amply illustrated by the nature of this debate, is that it is too often taken for granted. We assume that street lighting has always been there, and therefore its benefits are largely ignored. We may not be able to imagine our towns and cities without street lighting, but it makes a major contribution to our lives.

The Department of Transport more than adequately laid out in its evidence to the Select Committee details of the research that has been done, and I understand that the Select Committee is now considering the matter. Its evidence was very persuasive indeed. It quoted the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage, which surveyed 30 studies in 244 urban sites, including more than 200 sites in the United Kingdom where no or poor lighting was replaced by good traffic route lighting. It concluded that pedestrian casualties are reduced by between 45 and 57 per cent. and other road user casualties … by between 14 and 21 per cent.… fatal accidents are reduced by between 48 and 65 per cent. and serious injuries reduced by between 24 and 30 per cent … all accidents to all road users are reduced by between 14 and 53 per cent. Clearly, where there is subjectivity about the quality of light before and after, it makes it difficult to carry out detailed research, but considerable benefits were shown in many of the studies in which attempts were made at objectivity. The Department of Transport said: As most of these studies examined were of a large scale and had reasonable experimental design, their results can be accepted with some confidence. Other studies have been carried out showing substantial reductions in the accident rate. The most famous of all was the study by Barbara Sabey and H. D. Johnson, which was published as a Transport and Road Research Laboratory report in 1973. It showed the relationship between night-time accidents and street lighting. They said that their results demonstrated that money was not saved by reducing street lighting. Savings were involved in the reduction in darkness accidents, achieved by improving lighting on trunk roads, and these savings were substantial when measured against the cost of installing new lighting. They said in conclusion that the saving in costs of accidents on roads where a 70 mph speed limit applied was about three times the annual cost of the lighting. That statistic should appeal to those who are conscious of the need to make savings in public expenditure

One of the most interesting items of research, which I feel sure will appeal to Conservative Members, was carried out between November 1973 and March 1974, the previous period in which we experienced the effects of a miners' strike. We may well look carefully at the experience of that time in relation to road accidents as well as the effects of crime. We may be coming up to a similar period. During that control period the GLC road safety unit looked at the consequences on road accidents of the 10 to 15 per cent. cut in lighting brought in by Government diktat in a perhaps futile attempt to save energy during the electricity cuts. During that short period, in which extensive researches were carried out, significant increases in accidents occurred. They could not possibly have occurred due to any other external factor. The GLC estimated that had the trends observed during the lighting cuts been operative throughout 1973 there would have been over 900 extra pedestrian accidents. It pointed out that the greatest percentage increases in darkness accidents are in the fatal category. That research showed conclusively that where street lighting was reduced there was an increase in accidents.

The results of the Sabey and Johnson study showed that increased lighting reduced the number of accidents. Clearly it would reduce expenditure and the substantial cost to the community of night-time road accidents if we improved our road lighting programme. It is estimated that night-time road accidents probably cost this country more than £700 million a year, so any reduction in that cost is a reduction in the total cost to the community.

I shall deal next with the argument for reducing crime. That matter does not come instantly to the minds of Conservative Members, who tend to think in terms of short, sharp treatments, in institutions. Sometimes, from their wilder dreams, they talk about bringing back hanging and the birch and making sentences longer in an attempt to reduce the high level of crime in the past few years.

That idea is not confined to those of us on the Left who advocate increased public expenditure. Indeed, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago made his political reputation on the idea of lighting up the streets. He embarked upon a huge programme of street lighting in Chicago. Street crime has always been and is still a problem in American cities. The level of street crime was substantially affected by increased lighting.

It is self-evident that better lighting in the streets makes the possibilities and the temptations of crime much less. The incidence of mugging, attacks, thefts and even of burglary is reduced by better lighting, which makes crime or its possibility much more public.

If we invested more money in lighting, there is adequate research to suggest that we would reduce the amount of street crime as a consequence. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should be interested in that. The impact of street crime is not something that worries just the law and order brigade on the Conservative Benches. It worries many ordinary people in the community who suffer from the increase in muggings and burglaries.

Many problems of vandalism occur today. Instead of creating new crimes of vandalism in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, which has had no impact on the level of vandalism, although it will have had an effect on the number of people who are accused of the crime, we should be considering much more effective methods of reducing crime.

We must again go back to the evidence of the winter of 1973–74 to see the real impact of street lighting on crime. During that winter, when the cut-back in electricity was severe, the Secretary of State for the Environment was given to exhorting the nation to brush its teeth in the dark to save electricity. He was only prevented by Tory purity from suggesting bathing together to save electricity.

At that time, local authorities were exhorted to close down every second street lamp to save electricity. The Government requested local authorities to cut street lighting by half, which many of them agreed to do.

Some local authorities chose to watch carefully the correlation between crime in a control period and in the period of the blackout.

A study made in Brighton showed an increase of reported break-ins to houses of 100 per cent. Thefts from vehicles increased by 59 per cent. In the Preston area, all crimes went up by 55 per cent.

The Lancashire police, Preston division, broke down its general records of increases in crime during that period into the following categories. Housebreaking went up by 65 per cent., shop break-ins by 66 per cent., thefts from vehicles by 13 per cent., thefts from persons by 25 per cent., and thefts from shops and stalls by 65 per cent. There was a clear increase in crime, which can be explained only by the artificial reduction in street lighting. That example should be considered carefully by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Since 1973, lighting technology has considerably improved. Much more lighting is available of greater intensity and more cheaply. Modern lighting to replace existing systems would be brighter and save energy. We need not go back, during the coming winter of discontent, to the privations that were experienced during 1973–74.

8.30 pm

This has been a useful opportunity to explore the issues of considerable public importance which, I venture to suggest, have not been debated in sufficient detail in the House before. This also gives me the opportunity to debate a subject other than foreign affairs, which has tended to envelop my life, although I am tempted to discuss the street lighting in Moscow that I saw three weeks ago. Ancient incandescent light standards are being used there, which could be replaced from the modern facilities of Philips in Hamilton, in my constituency. I am sure that my experiences in the streets of Moscow will open up new vistas in British-Soviet trade terms.

One also sees dramatic lighting effects when one looks across the Berlin wall. Outside the average football stadium, there is no more intensively lit public property in the world than the area between the two walls in Berlin. I do not advocate that, but lighting is important in both foreign and domestic affairs.

There is also the worrying problem in Scotland of the possible cost to the community of the street lighting programme. Conservative Members are prone to talk at great length about increasing the size of the police force and support for it. However, every additional policeman who is recruited to man the beats of the country costs approximately £20,000 per annum, in salary and establishment costs. For that additional policeman, one could have 1,300 light standards per annum. Despite the fact that my brother and father are policemen, that comparison should be made, and we could usefully reduce the level of street crime with better lighting.

A renewal programme for street lighting would save energy, provide better lighting and, as a consequence, save public finance. A major programme of street lighting, funded by the Government, with the objectives that I have laid out, would save money, energy and lives, and reduce crime. I can think of no better cause for the Minister to champion at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Dewar

I listened with fascination to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). At least those of us who are gathered here this evening will now not have to read his pamphlet on street lighting, which is of some benefit to us. The co-author of the pamphlet is the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). It appears that the issue transcends party politics. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not here to take part in the debate. I suspect that he is huddled in a tent by the roadside measuring traffic flows on motorways with a view to adding to the impressive statistical base that lies behind that effort. I am genuinely impressed by the detailed knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, revealed in the pamphlet. It refers to the pattern of traffic on the Micklefield Green-South Mimms stretch of the A405. That is an important part of the mosaic of evidence with which my hon. Friend has built up his case.

I thought that my hon. Friend was about to argue that if we abolished the entire police force we could plant lamp standards across Britain in a way that would rival the efforts of the Forestry Commission in the Highlands. Perhaps I am being a little flippant. I genuinely recognise my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in road safety and attendant matters. Street lighting has an important and significant part to play. I have followed his arguments on matters such as seat belts for many years. In my innocent youth, I thought that there was only one form of seat belt, but it turns out that there are endless variations and sophistications. My hon. Friend has fought the battle long and hard, with considerable success. He has raised a matter of some interest and importance. Those of us who are here will look with sympathy on the general case that he has made.

My hon. Friend's arguments on road safety were persuasive and compelling. There is no doubt that if we could improve the standards of road lighting, we could improve road safety. It is always a matter of balance between the expense and the saving in human life and the cost of the injuries that result from inadequate lighting on some of our motorways.

I say to my hon. Friend a little more gently that some of his arguments on the crime figures were a little less persuasive. I have no doubt that the figures that he produced are entirely genuine, but, when there is a sudden failure of street lighting and a sudden increase in crime, that does not mean that if there were poor street lighting there would be a permanent increase in crime. The equivalent argument—and it is a well known statistical fact— is that, when the lights in New York failed, the birth rate doubled; but if one had bad lighting permanently in New York, that would not double the world population. There is what one might call an opportunity element in both sets of statistics. My hon. Friend should consider that aspect before going for broke on the fact that in Brighton, of all places, cuts in street lighting doubled the amount of house-breaking.

However, that is only a gentle caveat against the general case that my hon. Friend made. I have no doubt that adequate lighting is a disincentive to crime and makes the life of the police easier. My hon. Friend mentioned £90 million to £105 million for installing lighting throughout the motorway network, which is impressively modest compared with some of the savings that might result. Like my hon. Friend, I have a totally realistic impression of what the Minister can promise or suggest in general terms, but I hope that the argument has not been lost on the Government Front Bench, and that Ministers will be prepared to consider it.

Mr. George Robertson

One of the significant points about motorway lighting is that more lighting has been installed on motorways since they were built than at the time when they were built. My hon. Friend poured some humour on the statistics about one section of the M25. The M25 orbital motorway round London will be the busiest motorway in Europe, and only 25 per cent. of it will be built with lighting on it. That is an extraordinarily short-sighted policy for anybody to pursue.

Mr. Dewar

There is much sense in what the Minister is saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] The air of natural authority with which my hon. Friend advanced his argument took me to a future time, for just a moment.

I was not poking fun at my hon. Friend's argument on that point. I was merely putting in a few gentle reservations about the way in which he buttressed a good case in terms of the crime figures. I am glad to associate myself with his general case. There is an important argument to be advanced about increased lighting, particularly on the motorways, and, no doubt, generally throughout the road network.

I do not want to delay the Committee with a lengthy debate on that matter, so I shall move on to a detailed point, as we are on clause stand part, which I should like the Minister to clarify. Often one feels a little inhibited about raising probing points on clause stand part on the Floor of the House. I would have no inhibitions if we were in Committee upstairs, and no doubt many hundreds of other points could be raised, but it is worth airing this point.

I remind the Minister—he may have forgotten—that we are on clause 34. Subsection (1) states: A local roads authority shall provide and maintain lighting for roads, or proposed roads, which are, or will be, maintainable by them and which in their opinion ought to be lit. Local authorities suggested that there may be problems with that form of wording. The term "or proposed roads" refers to roads within new housing developments, which were constructed according to regional standards, which are likely to be taken over in future, and which, in terms of clause 34(1), may have to be provided with street lighting by the regional authorities.

The point that arises is put most simply in the explanatory memorandum. It states: Clause 20 will require local roads authorities to consider applications from private developers for consent to construct roads, a requirement which at present applies only in former burghs. Any administrative expense arising will, however, be more than offset by the saving which will result from roads authorities being able to require the developer to instal lighting when constructing the road, instead of themselves installing lighting at public expense as frequently happens at present. The point is self-evident. There may be extra administrative costs as a result of the legislation. but these will be more than offset by considerable savings. Instead of the local authority having to install road lighting for new roads and housing developments, it can be done by the developer at no cost to the local authority and with considerable savings for ratepayers.

Yet clause 34(1), which lays a duty on local authorities to provide lighting for roads, also refers to proposed roads. Those two statements seem to be partially contradictory. Local authorities are alarmed that they may end up having to install lighting on roads in housing developments. They may end up with the costs that they have traditionally met in the past and the full administrative expense, which they apparently do not need to worry about because of the savings. The point is of importance and needs clarification. It probably arises from confusion. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest.

8.45 pm
Mr. Home Robertson

I find it difficult to understand the distinction between the rights that we are creating for local roads authorities and those for the Secretary of State. Clause 34(1) states: A local roads authority shall provide and maintain lighting for roads, or proposed roads", Whereas subsection (2) states: The Secretary of State may provide and maintain lighting for roads, or proposed roads". Why should a local authority have a statutory duty imposed on it to provide lighting on roads or proposed roads? It is peculiar that there should be a statutory duty on local roads authorities to set up lamp standards on what is not yet a road.

On the other hand, the Secretary of State will have only discretionary power to provide lighting, even on existing roads that fall within the auspices of his Department. It is difficult to understand that distinction. If a road needs lighting, it needs lighting and it should have it, whether it is the responsibility of the local authority or of the Minister with responsibility for the Scottish Development Department. Why does the Secretary of State escape so lightly?

Mr. Allan Stewart

The House has listened to a well-informed and researched speech by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), whose interest in road safety is well known to us. I have sympathy with some points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), but nobody would dispute the general point about the importance of street lighting. It is possible to interpret crime figures in different ways, but street lighting is important in crime prevention. I would not go so far as to take examples from Moscow or Berlin, but when I look out from 34 Rowan road, Dumbreck, I am considerably reassured by the fact that the new road is extremely well lit. The general brightening up of the area through lighting undoubtedly helps in crime prevention.

The hon. Member for Hamilton made a good case on road safety grounds. That is the prime consideration that must dominate thinking about the provision of street lighting. We take road safety fully into account when we make decisions about new road lighting, but each decision must be taken on its merits. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's research will be taken fully into account when we make such decisions. I assure him that I shall read such parts of "Light up the Roads" that are not in the Official Report at the earliest opportunity because he is an expert in that area.

In answer to the hon. Member for Garscadden, I must say that there is not a problem. The term "proposed roads" is a restricted definition as a result of amendment No. 86, which was considered earlier.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked about the apparent differences in the obligations on roads authorities and the Secretary of State.

Roads authorities are obliged to maintain lighting for roads … maintainable by them and which in their opinion should be lit. It is important to interpret the clause as a whole.

With those explanations of some of the points raised, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to