PROVISION OF PICNIC SITES FOR TRUNK ROADS ETC. (Hansard, 20 June 1984)

§ Mr. Maxton
I have three points to make on clause 53. First, it seems to me that the clause should contain clause 52 as well. Clause 53 states that the Secretary of State may provide buildings and execute work on picnic sites, and provide facilities, which may include water closets, urinals, and washing facilities … and facilities for the provision and consumption of meals". If so, he should and must provide road bins or other receptacles for waste materials as well. The Secretary of State should have an absolute obligation to provide facilities for waste if he is to provide the other facilities.
381 Secondly, does the Secretary of State provide such facilities anywhere at present? I take it that we are referring to trunk roads, and not to facilities on special roads, such as motorway services.
Thirdly, according to subsection (3), The Secretary of State shall not provide meals or refreshments on the picnic site but may make arrangements for some person other than a regional, islands or district council so to provide". Why should the Secretary of State deny a regional, district or island council the opportunity to provide facilities for food on a site if it is prepared to do so? Why should the matter be left entirely to private enterprise, which might not wish to make use of the opportunity, while the local authority might wish to make some provision?

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth
The hon. Gentleman keeps telling us that the local authorities do not have enough money to do their work. Why give them more work?

§ Mr. Maxton
The local authority might make some money for the ratepayers by providing such facilities. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) shakes his head, but if private enterprise can make money, why should not the local authority do so? Most local authorities are considerably more efficient than private enterprise. I fail to see why a deliberate exclusion of local authorities should be built into legislation.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
I welcome clause 53, as there are not enough picnic sites in Scotland. This is a positive move to make it possible for tourists and travellers to enjoy the delights of our countryside. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). Clause 53 (3) is important, as the last thing that I would like is for local authorities to become involved in matters that should be handled by local people. Local ratepayers who provide such services would contribute to the well-being of the area. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have pursued for some time the case of people who want to provide such facilities on the A9.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the one thing that is missing from clause 53. I refer to the absence of a limit on the time that people can enjoy the facilities on a site. As my hon. Friend is aware, the more attractive we make such places and the better they are, it is sadly not people who travel who stay there but people who call themselves travellers but want to remain semi-permanently. Is there any legislation that limits the time people can park on the new picnic sites?

§ Mr. Home Robertson
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is right to say that it seems a little restrictive to say that regional, island and district councils shall not be allowed to provide meals and the rest on picnic sites. Just this once, however, I should like to speak up for the rights of the Secretary of State for Scotland as a human being. Even Secretaries of State for Scotland are human beings, although recent experience might cast some doubt on that. Clause 53 (3) says: The Secretary of State shall not provide meals or refreshments on the picnic site". Suppose the Secretary of State were travelling innocently between his constituency and his home with his family and he stopped at a lay-by or picnic site, opened up a picnic basket and provided a meal or refreshments for his family. Under clause 53 (3) he could be prosecuted. How far have 382 we gone towards totalitarianism when the Secretary of State can be prevented from having an innocent picnic with his family on the side of a road in Scotland? I can think of many things that I would like to do to the Secretary of State for Scotland but I shall not deprive him of that right.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
I shall deal first with the provision of litter bins and the number of sites. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not provide litter bins at picnic sites. However, there are no such sites at present because the powers in the Bill are new.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that schedule 8 amends the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 to allow the managing authority to make byelaws that would cover such sites.

§ Mr. Maxton
The Minister said that it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not provide picnic sites with waste bins. That is just not good enough. There are large elements of the Bill that we would reasonably assume that any reasonable person would ensure was done without the need for legislation. Why should the Secretary of State be exempt? Why is it always considered that he will be reasonable and will always provide bins? It makes sense to make the provision of waste bins a statutory obligation.

§ Mr. Stewart
It would not be appropriate to write it into the Bill, but I have said from the Dispatch Box that it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not provide litter bins, and my remarks will be on the record.

§ Mr. Craigen
The Minister has not answered some important questions posed by my hon. Friends. He will be aware that COSLA made two main suggestions in respect of the new powers being introduced in the clause. One was that the Secretary of State should have power to provide off-road parking along trunk roads. The other was that the prohibition against local authorities providing meals and refreshments should be removed.
The Minister will be aware that this has potential for Scotland's tourist industry, apart from the provision of facilities for the Scottish travelling public. I hope that he will comment on the recommendations that were advanced to his officials, if not to himself, by COSLA.

§ Mr. Stewart
I was in the process of responding to an intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and had not dealt with the point raised by hon. Members, and raised by COSLA, in relation to subsection (3).
It would not be appropriate either for the Secretary of State or a local authority to provide meals or refreshments on a picnic site; that is classically a private enterprise function. The correct role for the Secretary of State, therefore, is to lease the site, or a part of it, to someone from the private sector who could sensibly and properly undertake this function.

§ Mr. Craigen
This is a new form of uncompetitive privatisation. I should have thought that if a local authority had a trading department that was interested in the provision of refreshments, and could do so on a competitive basis, it should not be excluded from the opportunity of doing so.

§ Mr. Maxton
If we are to have a proper building containing catering facilities leased to a private enterprise 383 company, that will be acceptable, although I still do not see why the local authority should not have the opportunity, should it so wish — in most cases local authorities will not want to undertake the function—of undertaking this work.
May we have an assurance that this provision does not mean lots of hamburger caravans, often old and ugly-looking vehicles, parking on the site, opening up for business and detracting from the general appearance of the site?

§ Mr. Stewart
The managing authority will be able to make byelaws covering the site, and they could cover precisely that point.