HC Deb 26 June 1984 vol 62 cc894-900
Sir Hector Monro

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 34, line 43, at end insert— '(1A) The roads authority may authorise advertising and information signs within the highway boundary, subject to such conditions as the authority may specify in the authorisation.'. Amendment No. 2 deals with signs within the highway boundary. I had hoped to mention cattle grids, as my hon. Friend was very sympathetic about my views on cattle grids last week and has something constructive to say about them this week. Perhaps he will be able to work that into his remarks.

I am not quite clear whether it is a law or a Scottish Development Department regulation that one cannot have advertising signs within the highway boundary, in the area between the road surface and the boundary fence. In the old days—and frequently nowadays—the verge between the road surface and the boundary is perhaps only 3 or 4 ft. wide. I accept that it would be dangerous to erect advertising signs on that piece of grass. However, now that we have extensive dual carriageways and motorways, the highway boundary extends 40 or 50 yds from the road surface. It seems a pity that that area of ground should be sterilised, unable to be devoted to anything other than growing trees or grass, which costs so much to cut. Surely, it would be advantageous to those who are using the roads——

9.30 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error to think that it is illegal to erect advertising signs on roads. As far I recall, unless the law has been changed, signs can be erected, but planning authority is required in each case. If that is allowed, there is no difficulty.

Sir Hector Monro

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. If someone applies to the planning authority and the highway authority to put an advertising sign within the highway boundary on a trunk road, he is met by the celebrated quotation from the Scottish Development Department, "It is not in the interests of road safety." Irrespective of what the situation is, as a matter of principle there is no advertising within the highway boundary.

I am making a suggestion, which I am sure the Minister will treat favourably, that extensive highway boundaries 40 or 50 yds from the road surface, with great sweeping curves on dual carriageways, can be used occasionally for helpful advertising. We are not dealing with road signs—that is a different kettle of fish, and they are allowed. It is better that the hotel and service signs, which could be of great value to motorists on both motorways and trunk roads, are placed within the highway boundary when it is safe to do so and when it is to obvious advantage.

At present, because of the strict interpretation of the law—although there are one or two exceptions—the applicant who has a hotel or a restuarant, or other valuable services to offer to motorists, has to find a farmer who will accept advertising in his field outside the highway boundary—that is, just across the fence. We are putting a burden on people with hotels who are giving useful services when they have to find a farmer who will allow them to do that. He may be a tenant farmer, with a landlord. However, if one could put the sign just across the fence, inside the highway boundary, that would be far simpler and more effective.

I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister to take a more flexible attitude to the whole issue and to allow the planning authority and the highway authority to authorise signs within the highway boundary where there is no danger to road traffic and where the signs would be helpful to motorists looking for hotels and other services.

I am encouraged, because in the clause the Minister is urging individuals to plant trees within the highway boundary. I think that a motorist would prefer to run into a hotel sign than an oak tree. My hon. Friend cannot be saying that it is more dangerous to have hotel signs than oak trees. Therefore, the principle is demolished. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that everything that I have said is in the context of road safety. Where it is safe to put a hotel sign or other advertising signs of value to motorists within the highway boundary, one should be allowed to do so. Of course, advice would be given by the planning authority and the highway authority. My amendment would remove what appears to be a detail that invariably comes from Edinburgh. All that I am asking for is flexibility. I cannot see why on earth my hon. Friend should not accept what I am trying to do.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

I support the amendment. The matter was brought home to me during the past four weeks by a case in my constituency. The Minister for Transport visited Alford to open a new transport museum, which was funded partly by Grampian regional council, which is also the roads authority. Part of the point of putting the museum in Alford was that it was not on the main tourist route and it was anxious to develop attractions to bring people to the town. Recently they have also developed a small gauge railway and opened a country park. Although Alford is not on the main route and although the main funding agency is the regional council, which is also the roads authority, it is unable to put up a sign on the road from Aberdeen to point out these attractions.

Mr. Maxton

I must contradict that view. If the hon. Gentleman travelled to Glasgow, particularly to visit the Burrell collection, he would find that on all the routes entering Glasgow there are large signs, which were erected by the roads authority, directing people to it. The Burrell collection is not owned by the roads authority but comes under the control of Glasgow district council.

Mr. Bruce

I am interested to hear that, and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister reconciles those facts. The managers of the transport museum told me that they were not allowed to put up signs to encourage traffic into the area, which will not wash its face and recover its ratepayers' money unless it attracts about 20,000 visitors a year.

I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has that matter and the general principle of advertising in mind. It is difficult for an area to put itself on the tourist map and to attract people away from traditional routes, if it is not allowed to advertise its attractions. It would be beneficial to advertise them and it should be encouraged.

I hope that one day there will be a bypass round Inverurie. I regret that the Minister recently advised me that it would be a year later than when he last wrote to me. The traders in the towns around which bypasses have been built—this is true of all towns with bypasses—are understandably anxious that they may lose trade when the bypass opens. Bypasses are basically in the best interests of everybody. If people who are touring turn off a bypass into a town, they will get the double benefit of a town, free from great trucks pounding through its high street and with a quiet and pleasant shopping atmosphere.

Mr. Craigen

When the Kessock bridge opened, the people of Beauly insisted on signposting their bypass. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not confusing advertising with information. It is important that there are information signs, but I would be wary about the sort of advertising hoardings that may be inflicted on some rural areas.

Mr. Bruce

That is a fair point. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumfries will clarify his position on that point when he replies. I do not believe that Coca-Cola signs should be erected along the highway. From the speech that the hon. Member for Dumfries made, I do not think that that was in his mind.

Mr. Craigen

It may be in someone else's mind.

Mr. Bruce

That may be a problem with the drafting of the clause, but the principle is that information and advertising are not entirely separable. If I am talking about the attractions of a town and naming hotels—saying that it has a three-star hotel which has good food—that is valid information because it is relevant to that community and will attract people into the town to use the services. It is a specific information advertisement for a service in that locality. I should not support general hoarding advertising which advertises a product that one can obtain anywhere. I make that distinction.

Those communities that are trying to attract additional tourist business and are not on the main routes are disadvantaged by their inability to give proper advance warning of what they offer at the point at which people could divert to take advantage of them.

Mr. McQuarrie

I am surprised that the hon. Member is raising the point about towns not being able to give proper direction signs. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) gave the example of the Burrell collection in Glasgow. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) there is Haddo house which was taken over by Grampian regional council. There are signs on all the main routes throughout the constituency directing people to Haddo house. That is also true of Pitmedden, which is a National Trust property, and other National Trust properties. They are in his constituency, and the signs have been erected by Grampian regional council.

Mr. Bruce

I accept that point, but those signs are not on the roadside verges, from which they are specifically precluded. They are on private ground or have been negotiated in some other way. The point is not that they are not there but that they are selective. Some people can have them and some cannot. There should be a consistent policy.

I was quoting an example, which I believe is rather ironic, of the development that has been funded by the regional council, which is the roads authority, which is not even adequately advertised within the town. It is difficult to find the museum and Alford is not a big place.

I believe that the argument behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries has considerable merit. One would assume that the local roads authority has some understanding of road safety and could be expected to take responsible and reasonable decisions. It should be the right body to determine whether these signs should be erected. In that spirit, I should like to hear the Minister's response. I hope that he will be in favour of the principle behind the amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) because I recollect the debate that we finished not so long ago, when I mentioned the enormous volume of mail I had received about laybys. I have news for the House: I have an equal volume of mail on the subject of signposts, because, when one represents a large rural constituency, where and how one can find things is important. I shall draw the attention of the House to an example which explains clearly the distinction between advertising and information. There is a fine line to be drawn between them, but I hesitate to draw the line.

There was a problem with people coming to Perthshire who wanted to find Glenshee and the chairlift. If one was driving from the south with a map on one's lap looking for Glenshee, the probability is that one would pick the wrong Glenshee because there are two in Perthshire. If the map is folded, it is possible that the first Glenshee that one sees is to the north-west of Perth, whereas of course the Glenshee with the chairlift is to the north-east of Perth.

Fortunately, I was able to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the difficulties when he was the Minister responsible by getting him to look at a map. That was after nearly two years' debate on the problem of tourists finding this chairlift. Tourists use the chairlifts in summer so that they can walk on the top of the mountain. It was eventually agreed that the chairlift be properly signposted. That could be regarded as advertising because the chairlift is privately run.

9.45 pm

There is what I might describe as a hard-nosed attitude which describes everything in terms of road safety. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that there is no logical reason why, if the planting of trees is permitted, the use of signs for information and advertising is not permitted. If we want to encourage the tourist industry, which is one of the massive revenue earners for Scotland, we must adopt the realistic approach that we once adopted in regard to large industrial complexes. John Brown Engineering, for example, which can be seen miles away, was never refused permission to advertise where it was.

I am not suggesting that we have hoardings all over the place; nor is my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. We must introduce some sanity into the use of wide road verges for advertising so that tourist facilities can be developed and attract more people. The last thing that we want is people driving up the A9 and not stopping at the delightful facilities of Scone palace and other places which are just off the A9. We want to be certain that people know that such places exist. They will be able to do so only if we use the wide verges.

Mr. Maxton

There has been some confusion over this matter, as I understand that there are a variety of signs on roads which relate to specific attractions. I have already mentioned the magnificent Burrell collection in Glasgow, which I gather is now the largest tourist attraction in Scotland. Ministers, who tend to come from Edinburgh, will find a large sign on the M8 right into the centre of Glasgow, directing them to that collection.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) rightly pointed out that there are a variety of signs on the sides of roads for many National Trust properties. I know that Hopetown house is well signposted. There is more general advertising for a town's historic attractions. On the A74 just before Ecclefechan there is a large sign advertising the birthplace of Thomas Carlyle. Perhaps not many people know who Thomas Carlyle was and want to visit Ecclefechan for that purpose, but there is still a sign. Blantyre has a sign which makes it clear that it is the birthplace of David Livingstone.

Mr. Home Robertson

There is no sign for the birthplace of Keir Hardie.

Mr. Maxton

It is one of my great complaints that no notice is taken of Keir Hardie's birthplace, although I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is trying to resolve that problem. My point is that signs are already used to direct tourists to attractions. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a point that shows bad management on the part of roads authorities rather than their not being allowed to erect signposts. The Strathallan air museum is a privately owned concern which is close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and in which he should be interested.

Mr. Bill Walker

It is not in my constituency.

Mr. Maxton

The museum is one of the tourist attractions of the hon. Gentleman's constituency and it is advertised on the main road north. It is a tourist attraction in the general area of Perth and north Tayside. There are signs to it throughout the villages that lead to it. Those signs are on the roadside. That is an example of the fact that it is already permissible to erect signs.

Mr. Walker

If the hon. Gentleman had driven along the A9 recently he would know that since the bypass round Auchterarder came into use one can no longer see the sign to which he refers unless one can see through buildings.

Mr. Maxton

I have travelled down that road recently, but I cannot be sure what the present situation is. Certainly there were signs on the old A9 and there are certainly signs thereafter on the road leading to the Strathallan air museum, giving the direction.

I do not see what the argument is about. It is already permissible to put up signs. Why should we permit a measure designed in the main to permit private enterprise advertising on the side of the road, which can only damage the view and the tourist industry?

My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is showing me his watch, perhaps implying that I am taking too long. I am a member of the Finance Bill Committee, and the length of this debate will not make much difference to me.

The amendment would detract from the tourist attraction of an area. It would lead to the erection of hoardings and signs which many of us would find very unattractive.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)

I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro). It may be significant that the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and myself have in common either the existence of bypass communities, or the new A9.

First, I shall refer to the bypass communities and to the opening of the Kessock bridge. Beauly is one example, but others will follow as the road is developed into Sutherland and Caithness. There is a great deal of local frustration because people may not put up informative or advertising signs. Such signs could lead tourists off the main road—tourists who would be looking for the facilities and environment which places such as Beauly have to offer. Because there are at present insufficient advertising and informative signposts showing what is available, the tourists drive on north and the local area loses revenue.

I have another reason for supporting the amendment. If one considers the stretches of the A9 beyond Inverness and through Easter Ross, one can see examples of what has been described. There is a considerable expanse of land adjoining the highway boundary. Time and again, local people make strong objections because they wish to advertise a restaurant, hotel or other amenity or facility there and they are legally prohibited from doing so. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that the result of the amendment would be that large hoardings would be put up. People in the Highlands want to make the Highlands as attractive as possible in order to induce tourists to visit them. They are not likely to cut off their nose to spite their face by erecting signs along the whole length of the A9. The hon. Gentleman represents a Glasgow constituency. He is in no position to say that the Highland regional authorities——

Mr. McQuarrie

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spends his holidays in Arran.

Mr. Kennedy

The hon. Gentleman is certainly a sight, and I am sure that we could raise money in the Highlands by encouraging people to view him.

There is no desire to erect large hoardings, but there is a definite and genuine desire for a positive form of advertising which is contained and sensible. That would make more sense than the present approach, and I hope that the Minister will be positive and constructive. I certainly give the amendment my whole-hearted support.

Mr. Home Robertson

Having told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that he was going on too long, I must now defend him against some ludicrous remarks, especially from alliance Members who, characteristically, support the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). If hon. Members want more information to be available for tourists in their constituencies or elsewhere, by all means let the House encourage roads authorities to provide such information. Indeed, roads authorities already have that power. Dozens of examples have already been given, and I shall not prolong the debate by citing examples in my own constituency, where the roads authority erected signs directing people to facilities, attractions and so on. It is all properly planned, it looks tidy and it imparts information.

If such provision is inadequate in a given area, the hon. Member concerned should make representations to the appropriate roads authority, the Scottish Development Department or whoever. The amendment states: The roads authority may authorise advertising and information signs within the highway boundary, subject to … conditions". It specifically mentions the roads authority, and it appears that the planning authority will have no say at all, yet in my part of the world the two authorities are different.

The hon. Member for Dumfries said that it would be better for someone to drive into a Coca-Cola sign than into an oak tree. That says a lot about the hon. Gentleman's sense of aesthetics, but whether he likes it or not, the amendment uses the word "advertising". Therefore, it would become possible—in some areas it might well be encouraged—for people to festoon the road sides with advertising hoardings for this, that or the other.

Sir Hector Monro

Before the hon. Gentleman goes quite bonkers with his ridiculous remarks, does he not realise that the amendment "may" authorise an advertising sign? The local authority will not authorise the sort of thing which he has in mind. The hon. Gentleman must be sensible about this constructive amendment, not totally foolish and irresponsible.

Mr. Home Robertson

The wording of the amendment is abundantly clear: The roads authority may authorise advertising … signs and so on. Presumably that is what the hon. Gentleman means to happen. I do not think that the Minister wants to see the tourist or other routes in Scotland desecrated in that way any more than I do. Therefore, I merely wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and, I hope, the Minister in rejecting this ludicrous amendment.

Mr. Ancram

I thought for an awful moment that I was finding strange bedfellows on the Opposition side of the House. I listened with great care and attention to what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) had to say to see whether there was anything that I would have to endorse. As I, like many other hon. Members, failed to understand much of what he said, that danger did not arise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) began by referring to hedgehog ramps in cattle grids. Although this matter is not before the House at the moment, it will be included in a circular sent to the authorities, and I hope that his efforts have not been wasted.

Our debate on the amendment is not a new one. I recollect many of these points being made during the passage of the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Act. Some of my hon. Friends made points then as forcibly as they have this evening, if not more so. This does not detract from an important subject. My hon. Friend——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.