TRADING (Hansard, 26 June 1984)

§ Mr. Bruce
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 66, line 24 at end insert— '(1A) No roads authority shall unreasonably withhold permission for the stationing of such stall or vehicle at convenient places adjacent to public roads, provided that adequate room is available for customers and their vehicles, the area is kept free of litter and the stall or vehicle is of tidy appearance. '. This amendment is in the name of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] His name is on the Order Paper. He does not appear to be here, but I assure the House that I am well able to speak for him and myself.
The purpose of the amendment is to try to inject a policy into the Bill where no policy presently exists. All hon. Members will be aware, as they drive around the country, that traders operate in laybys selling refreshments, but there is no clear policy about what terms those traders can or should operate under—whether they come under the classification mentioned by the hon. Member from Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and should be moved on at the earliest opportunity, or whether they have a clearer right to operate.
The purpose of the amendment is to say that, where the Bill deals with trading, it should not be bureaucratic. The principle of allowing people to operate in that fashion should not be presumed against. We are aware that such refreshment bars can create problems of congestion, litter and nuisance, but if they are properly regulated and fulfil conditions that do not cause litter and congestion, they can provide a useful service. In many parts of the country that is the case.

§ Mr. Craigen
I understand that, just as the owner would be responsible for keeping the vehicle in a tidy condition, he would also be responsible under the amendment for keeping the area free of litter.

§ Mr. Bruce
That was the intention of the amendment. If anybody operates in such a way, he should be required to meet those conditions. Provided that he does, it is a reasonable proposition that he should be allowed to trade.

§ Mr. Maxton
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am desperately trying to work out where the amendment fits in. The Order Paper refers to page 66, line 24, and that makes no sense.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I should have made that plain. I thought that Mr. Deputy Speaker had done so. There is a misprint. It should be page 67, line 14. Has the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) concluded his speech?

§ Mr. Bruce
The Bill leave unclear what rights those traders have. The amendment seeks to make a clear regulation so that those facilities, which do operate, will operate under proper regulations.

§ Mr. McQuarrie
I oppose the amendment because it is unnecessary. The Bill clearly states that such trading may not take place except with the consent in writing of the roads authority and in accordance with such reasonable conditions as the authority think fit. I have had wide experience in my constituency of the sort of trading that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) described. It has caused great problems in regard to discarded litter, untidiness and danger. The traders are invariably in laybys on trunk roads, and policemen cannot run after them every minute of the day.
The Government are right to suggest that it is adequate for the roads authority to lay down conditions as it thinks fit. I oppose the amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do likewise.

§ Mr. Ancram
I can set the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) at rest, as I shall resist the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will withdraw it.
The amendment does not make sufficient provision for road safety. Even if all the other criteria set out in the amendment were met, road safety is not considered and the dangers of sudden manoeuvres by motorists to take advantage of the facility will still cause danger to other road users.
Secondly, the amendment includes the subjective test of what is meant by "adequate room". That could lead to considerable problems of interpretation—for example, if a mobile snack bar were popular, parking that was initially adequate might prove to be inadequate. That would raise questions about road safety and would cause dangers to road users.
Clause 97 is important. It is important that roads authorities should not have their new power under the clause restricted further. I believe that authorities will operate their powers constructively and will grant consent where there are no overriding reasons of public safety or amenity for refusing it. That will be my right hon. Friend's policy for trunk roads. We shall issue guidance to local authorities in a circular. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Bruce
I am interested that the Minister will issue a circular to give guidance on the matter. However, the Bill does not make it clear—the circular may clarify the position—exactly what the position will be when the Bill is enacted.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) fairly identified the problem. I do not wish to pretend that a potential problem does not exist if such trading is not regulated. Clearly, litter, traffic and road safety must be considered. I have a letter of a few years ago from the Scottish Development Department to the Grampian regional council, which shows that the council was not clear about its rights and wrongs, and that the circular did not shed light on the matter. I accept that the Minister raised some points about the drafting of the amendment, which might make it looser than it was intended to be.
In the light of what the Minister said about issuing a circular—I hope that he will make it clear that the Government recognise that such stalls will operate and want to provide a sensible framework that is fair to all parties with regard to safety and which will allow the operators to operate effectively—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.