§ 5.3 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the number of road accidents caused by falling trees, whether the Ministry of Transport should take more action regarding roadside trees than they have done hitherto. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to draw attention this afternoon to the considerable number of dangerous trees bordering major and minor roads in Great Britain to-day. Among all the hundreds of accidents recorded by the Ministry of Transport, they were not able to supply me this afternoon with figures regarding falling trees. However, there are accidents, and fatal accidents, which I submit are needless. It only requires a bus crowded with people to be in collision with a falling tree to cause a major accident, and then, perhaps too late, people will turn and call for action.
The present law on roadside trees I believe is far too loose and leaves much of the onus on landowners adjoining roads. A tree is considered safe until a reasonable-minded man complains 701 that it looks unsafe. I contend that many reasonable-minded men do not have the knowledge of what constitutes a dangerous tree. In some ways a tree may be likened to a criminal; that is to say, it is not guilty until proved to be so. The criminal, though, has a better deal, since his case is examined before legal experts, but a tree is left to be judged by the opinion of laymen often steeped in Tree Preservation Orders, and the judgment is faulty.
At this point I should like to give your Lordships a recent example where the owner of a tree was being sued for negligence. The tree had crashed down on a garage and had demolished three brand-new cars. On inspection by experts called in, it was noticed, almost at a glance, that the tree had suffered from armillaria mellea, the honey fungus disease. This destroys the strength of the roots. However, it was considered that a reasonable-minded man could not have discovered this and the owner of the tree was not held responsible for the damage.
I would admit that in a strong wind a certain number of trees are always liable to windfall without prior warning. However, I would contend that of the trees blown down the fall of 80 per cent. could have been forecast. Dangerous trees can often be placed in one of three categories: the dead, the dying and the diseased. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to see that both the Ministry of Transport and county councils carry out their responsibilities for roadside trees more carefully. The number of expert teams should be increased to check all roads, and landowners should be asked to co-operate. Sentimentality for trees that have passed their prime, and are now bordering on becoming dangerous trees, should be put aside. The work of inspection on the roads could, if necessary, be contracted out to firms which specialise in forestry. I would also ask Her Majesty's Government to see that in future no roadside trees are planted within 70 feet of the kerb. Shrub trees could be planted in their place and could provide both amenity and a wind break.
Finally, I should like to add that much of what I have said is supported by the Automobile Association and a great many forestry consultants. I have heard 702 it said that there is a great deal of apathy to this problem, and some say that there are no bones to the problem. One can only reply that there certainly would be no bones left if anyone came into conflict with a tree.
§ 5.8 p.m.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, the question that the noble Earl has put forward is, I must frankly admit, one which puts us all at a slight disadvantage: it refers to something about which we have little information. He mentioned the bones of the question, and I should like to divide my reply into the question of the bones—that is, the substance of it—and to deal at slightly greater length with what might be called "apathy". I hope to show the noble Earl that the situation is not quite so bad as he thinks.
Naturally I started by trying to size-up this problem, and I had hoped to find that the noble Earl had some statistical sources on this matter. I was not surprised to hear him say that he really had not. I should also have wished that, if not available to him, some were available to me. I can only draw on road accident statistics based on police reports, which are factual: and, unfortunately, the statistics include no separate figures for accidents caused by trees, whether in the act of falling or having fallen. Consequently I just do not know what proportion of accidents we are talking about.
Not very long ago we had occasion to analyse the accident statistics for 1959, and we found that in that year about 1 in every 75 road accidents involving personal injury included a reference to obstacles in the road. That term can cover a very wide range of possible objects. and, among many other things, would probably include fallen trees and branches. It does not follow that in all cases the obstacle or obstacles caused the accident. I am therefore afraid that all we can really say is that the frequency with which the presence of a fallen tree featured in personal accidents may be considerably less than 1 in 75, but we have no means of knowing whether it is 1 in 150, 1 in 300, 1 in 3,000 or whatever other figure it may be, although I rather suspect that it cannot really be a very large one.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, may I interrupt here? I believe that the Ministry of Transport do list all accidents, naturally, in one book, but I should have thought that these figures could have been produced. I do not accept that the Ministry of Transport cannot produce figures, in fact.
§ LORD CHESHAMThe noble Earl, I fear, must accept it from me, because we can produce figures only on information which we receive from various sources. The noble Earl may not realise that the source of accident reports is the police, and that there are many forms of accidents involving things other than trees in which people are interested. If such matters are to be collated separately, and if the police are to be asked to separate out all that kind of information on the form which they fill in, it would make their task almost impossible. I am afraid I must ask the noble Earl to accept that the figures are not forthcoming.
My Lords, I should like to get on to what action can be taken. The noble Earl said that, in view of the number of accidents, whatever that number is, it must, if it is a source of accidents, be worth considering—and there I completely agree with him—and he asked whether the Ministry of Transport should not take more action than has been taken hitherto. My Lords, I think I ought to make it quite clear where the responsibility lies. My right honourable friend's direct responsibility as highway authority is confined to trunk roads in England and Wales—that is, to about 6.400 miles, out of a total of nearly 174,000, which is a little over 3 per cent. In respect of the other 167,000 miles of road, any action which might be desirable or possible would fall to be taken by the local highway authority concerned—that is, the county council, the county borough or the urban district, as the case might be. I think your Lordships will see from this that the scope for greater activity on the part of the Ministry is really rather a limited one, apart, possibly, from fresh legislation if it turned out that that seemed to be necessary.
I say that, my Lords, because I would now turn to the powers of highway authorities—that is, all highway authorities; my right honourable friend and 704 all the others—in this matter. Until August last year, the only general power available to deal with dangerous trees or other vegetation was Section 134 of the Highways Act, 1959. That enables the appropriate authority to serve on an occupier of land notice to lop or cut a hedge, tree or shrub which overhangs a highway so as to endanger highway users or obstruct vision. There must be some actual danger. But last year the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act came into force, and Section 10 of it extends the powers so that the appropriate authority may now take precautionary action to forestall danger in such cases where it appears to them that a hedge, tree, shrub, or whatever it may be, is dead, diseased, dying, insecurely rooted or anything like that, and is likely, by reason of being in that condition, to cause danger by falling on the road.
Therefore, my Lords, I think I can say that we have already moved most usefully in the direction which the noble Earl desires and for which he called, and it would have been very pleasant if I could have claimed that this was an action that was taken by the Ministry. Honesty compels me to admit, however, that the initiative for that clause came in fact from the county councils, and the Bill was, in fact, introduced by a private Member in another place. But the fact that the initiative came from the county councils—who, after all, are highway authorities for a great many very important roads—shows that they, like the noble Earl, were concerned about the previous inadequacy of their powers; and I think we may safely take it that their object in seeking the new power was to use it as might be necessary.
May I revert for a moment to trunk roads, where my right honourable friend is the highway authority? The new power will, as was the case with the previous one, be available both to him and to the council of the borough, urban district or county in which the trunk road lies. Therefore there will be a concurrent jurisdiction, so that, in theory, both the Minister and the council could, independently, cause the road to be inspected and could serve notices on the occupiers of land on which there were any trees that looked doubtful. In practice, it will not happen quite like that. The Minister 705 will rely on his agent authorities, in the course of their activities in maintaining the trunk roads on his behalf, to be vigilant and to exercise the powers where it seems necessary to do so. It is not necessary that he should delegate those powers, because the local authorities already possess them. A circular has, in fact, already been issued to all highway authorities drawing attention to this power, and to the other provisions of the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
My Lords, this new power has been available for such a very short time that I suggest that it is much too early to draw any conclusions about whether my right honourable friend, or any other highway authority, ought to have been more active in exercising it since it was placed on the Statute Book. If we should have cause to think that any of our agent authorities was doing less, or was being less vigilant, than we should wish in this respect, it would not be very difficult to make our concern known. For all the other highways, in this as in many other respects, we can only leave it to the discretion of the local highway authorities—who, after all, are responsible bodies on whom Parliament has conferred these powers, without direction or supervision by my right honourable friend in the way in which they exercise them.
In saying that, I should like to ask your Lordships to bear very much in mind one aspect to which the noble Earl has already referred. No matter how wide the powers are or however painstaking any authority is, I cannot see how it is possible to make a completely "water-tight" job of it. As the noble Earl said, certain aspects do make it very difficult. One has to be a very great expert to be able to tell accurately the condition of a tree; and trees which are shallow-rooted are, of course, the most difficult of all.
I am going to spare your Lordships personal experiences (of which I have had quite a few in the last few weeks, including roadside trees), but time and again it has proved that ostensibly completely sound trees have gone down when impelled by rather unusually high winds. For circumstances such as these I do not think anyone can cater. But otherwise I hope that. I have been able 706 to show that the present powers, and the action taken under them, are adequate to meet the fears which are the subject of the Question. Basically I agree with the noble Earl that a close watch should be kept, so far as that is possible, and I hope that he will feel that there are, in fact, adequate powers to do what he wants. The only remaining thing I have to say, is that I think he is quite right to raise this very important question, even if falling trees are not a very large cause of accidents. If it helps to save a few, it will be all to the good, and I think the noble Earl has done a good job in raising this Question.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would consider this problem of not planting trees within 70 feet of the kerb? He did not actually mention that in his reply.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I hope that I can answer that point and remain in order. I will certainly consider what the noble Earl has suggested, and when I have done so I will get in touch with him.