HL Deb 07 April 1976 vol 369 cc1751-86

7.36 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that action is necessary to halt the reduction of parking facilities in Central London, in view of the hardship which this causes both during the day and at night. The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I tabled my original Unstarred Question it was worded somewhat differently and it was specifically aimed at the widespread hardship which is caused to cinema, theatre and restaurant patrons in the West End at night time. However the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was both lucky and unlucky simultaneously in the ballot for Short Debates to be held on 14th April in your Lordships' House, because although he won, it was impossible for him to be here on that day for that debate. As a result, I reframed my Question, with the complete concurrence and agreement of the noble Lord, so that it now covers a much wider, if not the whole, field of parking restrictions. I am also very happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is answering for the Government, as the noble Baroness is a very sympathetic person.

However, I shall only speak about matters concerning my original Question and I shall let the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and other noble Lords deal with the rest of the widespread problem; namely, the daytime, when for different reasons which no doubt will be explained to your Lordships, hardship, irritation and frustration are caused to perfectly normal, law-abiding citizens through the often irrational and unreasonable restrictions imposed largely by legislation but invoked by people who in many instances appear to have no idea what they are doing. In spite of this preamble, my Lords, I can assure you that I shall be brief.

Let us first consider the object of the existence of the motor-car. Briefly, it is to enable the individual, his family and his friends to travel independently from A to B for their own reasons, whether these be for business or for pleasure. Alas! today, with the present legislation, the motorist is hounded and persecuted from every side and I am speaking about only one aspect of his persecution; that is, when his vehicle is not even moving. As soon as he stops, he has potentially changed from a normal law-abiding citizen into a criminal through matters which are often beyond his control.

Before I go into these matters in slightly greater detail, I would ask your Lordships to bear with me and to consider the revenue that the Government obtain from the motorist. Last year the car road fund licence fee was increased from £25 to £40, and the total revenue from that is about £532 million a year. In addition, there is on, for instance, four star petrol, VAT of 15.3p per gallon and an excise duty of 22.5p per gallon, which makes a total of 37.8p on every gallon of petrol he uses. In 1974, 3,930 million gallons of petrol were consumed and if my arithmetic is correct this comes to the astronomical figure of £1,485,540,000. Since auditing this figure, which I did this afternoon, after yesterday's Budget we must add yet another £39,300,000.

Lastly, when a new car is purchased, there is the addition of 8 per cent. VAT, producing £122.3 million and a 10 per cent. car tax which produces £155 million. Once again, if we add the whole of these figures into the grand total we have the absolutely staggering sum of £2,332,173,000 produced by the motorist for the Chancellor. Therefore I feel there can be nobody who would deny that a certain sympathy should be extended to this long-suffering human being.

I am fully aware that in our cities, and in particular in London, we must have some form of control of the traffic—but only up to a certain point. It is the position where this point is reached that is the crux of the matter. My Lords, where-ever you go today, in any city, town or hamlet, there are proliferations of yellow paint. During the day time in London—and London is the specific subject of this Question—I would agree that the streets must be kept clearer than at night, so that people may go about their business. But after 6.30 p.m., when the meter's duty is done—and here I would add that many meters are positioned in the most ridiculous places, very often in a narrow street opposite each other, whereby they cause more congestion—I fail entirely to understand why the law of the double yellow line should still reign supreme.

When parking meters were originally installed their prime object, so we were told, was to provide revenue for off-street parking. This, alas!, has not come to pass, or certainly does not appear to have done to any great extent. In fact I believe that with the ever-increasing number of traffic wardens in certain cases not only do meters produce no revenue they actually produce a loss—this in spite of the fixed penalty being raised to the unjustifiable and unfair amount of £6. These details will, I know, be debated by other noble Lords.

Your Lordships will also be interested to know that in theatreland, as I like to call it, the actual spaces in garages total only 1,610. It must also be borne in mind that of those 1,600-odd spaces probably quite a lot are taken up by other people who have nothing to do with the itinerant traffic to the West End at night. Perhaps, further, in many instances it is the staffs at the restaurants who occupy these places. Many cinemas and many theatres sometimes blame VAT for the bad trade they do, but I am sure that one of the more realistic reasons is lack of parking facilities. The average cost for a short stay in one of these garages, if you can get in, is just over £1. The snag here is that many of these garages shut at midnight, so how can you go to the theatre or the cinema, come out between 10.30 and 11, and have dinner afterwards? You have no motor-car because the garage is shut, if you have got in.

I asked a Question for Written Answer the other day about how many policemen are used at night for removing cars from the West End, and how much this cost in overtime. I received a somewhat cryptic Answer, that from Monday to Friday two police constables and eight civilian vehicle removal officers are employed primarily—whatever that may mean—from 4 a.m. to midnight. As the Answer arrived on 1st April I thought it must be an April fool. It transpired that it was a typographical error and should have read 4 p.m. to midnight. In addition, on Saturday nights an additional sergeant and four further constables are used. The cost in overtime was not available. So far as removals go, these figures may be correct. The other night I went to the cinema, and I lost count of the number of police I saw in a very small area, who were not just checking for bombs but were taking the registration numbers of parked cars, from which no doubt in due course the owner will receive a summons for obstruction and doubtless get fined £6, or perhaps more if the car is removed; in that case I believe it costs £15 to retrieve it, plus, probably, your taxi fare to wherever the car pound may be. I should like to add here that on this particular trip to the cinema I also found out that there are some double yellow lines where you may leave your car with impunity. This state of affairs appears to me to bring the whole system into complete disrepute.

Lastly, I feel very inclined to the belief that somewhere along the line most of this trouble is caused by the organisers of public transport, who for some extraordinary reason want to do away with the individual, and they want to do away with the private motor car. My Lords, we must also remember the fact that public transport is totally unsatisfactory and abysmally bad after midnight, and taxis are prohibitive in price. There are, it is true, a few Underground trains from the West End after midnight, but any time after 10 p.m. one is, I am told, in danger of being "mugged". The day buses end at midnight, and at best there is one an hour or at worst two a night, depending on the route, leaving from the Charing Cross area.

My Lords, what is needed is a proper policy on parking. When asked what can be done the Home Office apparently sometimes say it is a matter for the local authority. In this instance I feel very strongly that this cannot be the right answer. I will agree that there are many narrow streets in the West End where parking by day or night is impossible. But there are many other double yellow line streets where there is plenty of room at night and where no congestion or obstruction would be caused. So I will be very grateful if the noble Baroness. Lady Stedman, would very sincerely and earnestly consider my Question, and what can be done to improve the lot of the private citizen taking his pleasure after his day's work is done, so that the frustration and hardship, both mental and financial, can be alleviated.

7.46 p.m.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for having raised this matter. Perhaps I should say, by the way, that I have noticed that when the digital clocks which normally record the length of speeches are not operating the length of all speeches goes up by 20 per cent., judging from the previous debate. So I will try to be succinct in my remarks. I think it shows the advantage of clocks in reminding us that we are standing too long on our feet. I was rung up while in Switzerland to say that I had drawn the ballot for the debate which I had long hoped to draw on Wednesday. Unfortunately, I was not able to do it. It so happened that I had had an accident that day and broken my hand. So I was very happy to change the date and co-ordinate my debate with the Unstarred Question by Lord Kimberley. I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

My Lords, I perfectly concede that the administration of parking and the treatment of the motorist in Central London must be primarily the responsibility of the GLC—and I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who has such a great knowledge of these matters, is going to follow me in this debate—and, of course, also the responsibility of the boroughs. The fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is going to reply reminds us of the fact that no Government can opt out of the wellbeing of the capital city of the country, and it is about the well-being of London, particularly the West End of London, that I am primarily concerned.

I cannot help feeling that the Government must be very mindful, with our present imbalance of payments, of the need to attract tourists to London. We literally have hundreds of thousands of people who come, now it seems almost every month of the year, to take advantage of our shops, our amenities, theatres, concerts, our cinemas and everything that London can offer. If we make it virtually impossible for these people to arrive at the places they have chosen either to shop at or for their recreation, then I think we are dealing a very savage blow to the invisible exports of tourism, and these are vitally important to us. I may say that anyone who was born, as I was, in London, and has grown up in London, is proud to see the way in which London continues to attract tourists from every nation of the world.

There has been some confusion. After the war, for a decade or perhaps two decades, every time a new building was built it was mandatory to provide under that building parking facilities. I think very prudently the Government of the day thought that this parking would get cars off the road, and perhaps they also had in mind that should the worst happen it might be useful as possible air raid shelters. Therefore, a lot of capital was invested in providing these facilities. Now the doctrine has changed, and many of the owners of these facilities are being urged not to allow their staff to come in and leave their cars parked under these buildings.

It was in 1963 that Colin Buchanan published his very thoughtful and deep report on the way in which our cities were developing and the part that motor cars had to play in the development of our cities. I think he influenced successive Governments' minds and the minds of the GLC and others who have responsibilities for our main cities. It was in the early 1960s that we started seeing the installation of meters in the various boroughs of London. At that time they were six old dinari for half an hour. They are rather more expensive now. The sixpence has been progressively abolished, against the wishes of many people in the population, and made useless through inflation. Do not let us forget the fact that the object of installing these was to make enough money to institute off-street parking facilities. When one looks at the results, one sees that very few boroughs have actually used the income from their meters for this purpose. I have the GLC Report up to 31st March 1975—and I am most grateful to our Library, who are extremely conscientious and efficient in this manner, for providing it—and we find that of the 29 Inner and Greater London boroughs, 20 of them are not making a profit out of their meters, but a loss.

Obviously, the whole principle of using these tremendous funds for this purpose of off-street parking has gone. I understand that wardens now have to be paid something between £40 and £50 a week for carrying out their duties, which is very much more than most professional people. No doubt this, with other overheads, has aggravated the losses which are now being made. In fact, the total net loss in the London boroughs is now £585,933—over half a million pounds loss. I am glad to say, without making too strong a political point, that it is only Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster who are making a profit. Noble Lords will quickly draw their own conclusions about that. In fact the profit in Westminster is £5.4 million. I concede that they have special circumstances. In Kensington and Chelsea it is £1.6 million. Incidentally, that and the City of London are the only boroughs who have used their profits to construct off-street parking; a total investment of £422,000 in off-street parking.

Now I look at the number of meters. There was a time when these were going up progressively. We have the figures for 1975 in the GLC publication, and they were about 39,000. The AA figures are rather lower. In addition to these parking meters, which are mainly for short-term parking, there are the residents' parking meters which number another 36,000. So we have a more or less stable population of meters since 1971, but now we learn—it was announced last year, and perhaps we could have clarification of this at the end of this debate—that the GLC has demanded that of this total number 8,000 should be removed, and 1,000 should be taken away from Westminster. I would ask how many residents' parking lots are provided in the place of these meters.

Of course, there has been pressure to keep commuters out of London, and there has been an equal promise that public transport will be immensely improved. Now if this was coming about I could understand that the policy made sense, and that it might be sensible to withdraw some of these meters. When I see some of the queues at our bus stops, when I know of the shortage of bus crews (which have been difficult to recruit), when I recognise that sometimes my wife or my friends have to wait 20 or 30 minutes for a bus, and when they come they come in convoys—particularly No. 11 s—one can understand that this policy of switching from the private motorist to public transport is not wildly popular with the population of our capital city.

Of course, in the reports made by the GLC, they rightly say that the biggest growth has not been in commuter traffic—and one has only to travel to London Airport early in the morning to see the desperate blocks on the M4 of all those commuters who are trying to get into London, and the waste of time and the frustration that that causes—but the fact that we have not developed our orbital roads and the box to try to persuade through-going traffic to go round. It is the through-going traffic which has really grown—not the commuters, not the short-time parkers—which finds it convenient to use the main roads of London as their way through from the South to the North or vice versa. I cannot help feeling that both the Government and the GLC ought to re-examine the case of trying to divert some of these heavy lorries round the centre of London, and not to destroy the centre of London by allowing them to pass through and shake it to death.

I would mention that having represented North Hendon for 20 years, a highly marginal seat, I am mindful of the commuters' problem of trying to get into London. They say that the Northern Line is rather like living in a permanent sardine tin; the only difference is that you keep your head, but only just. I had some problem in trying to persuade the mainline railways. British Railways, which went through Mill Hill Broadway to Kings Cross to stay in business as one way of alleviating the pressure of travelling to London—and, by the way, trying to discourage people. I would ask the Government and the GLC not only to consider the traffic problems and the tube problems, but also to try to bring pressure on our main lines to increase the number of stops so that they can collect extra passengers and use the capital investment of our main lines to help carry people in and out of London.

I cannot help feeling that we really are in danger of depopulating the centre of our capital city. If we do not do something about it, we are going to make it totally uneconomic for shops to be here, for commerce to be here, for professional people to set up their offices in the centre of London, and what applies to London has already applied in other cities of the world. New York is already feeling the rotting denigration of the centre of that city. Friends who live in Manchester tell me that the same thing is happening up there. It is impossible to pay the very high rates and the very high rents for shops in the centre of London if you do not have the facilities for your stock to be delivered and if you have not got facilities for your customers to buy and to carry their goods away.

My son recently delivered a few dozen educational books to Hamleys. They were very heavy and they could not possibly have been sent by parcel post—you could not afford it these days, even if you were sure they would arrive. A few dozen educational books are heavy, so my son went round for half an hour trying to find some place to park in Regent Street. He found it utterly impossible. He parked on a yellow line; he incurred a risk to his discs, and other things, from carrying this very heavy load of books into Hamleys. He came out 15 minutes later and found, of course, that the car had been towed away to a pound and he had to pay £20 to get it out. While I do not want to give personal examples, that is one instance of the sort of thing that happens.

Why are we not making arrangements for the commercial delivery of goods? In Paris they insist that all lorries deliver goods before the commuter traffic starts. Should we not be doing the same in this country, or perhaps after the commuter traffic has gone? We must do something if we are to persuade shopkeepers to remain in expensive areas and offer facilities to their customers. What chance does a customer have in some streets? In my view it is not by accident that if one looks at the popular shopping streets—Piccadilly, for example—one finds them full not of shops wishing to sell goods but of prestige airlines, because one does not there have to take goods away but simply hand over a credit card to buy the product. In that area there is no chance of parking and carrying goods away. This will go on, and progressively those who are catering for consumers and customers—including many tourist customers—will move to the peripheries of our cities. This will be bad for the centre of London and will make it totally unviable and economically desperately difficult. In my view, it is not by acci- dent that in the expensive areas of London we now see prestige offices, airline offices and high cost small goods establishments like jewellers, silversmiths and camera shops—shops selling things which people can carry away with them because there is no chance of them being able to park their cars anywhere near. My noble friend made the point about the arts. We are famous in the eyes of our tourists; we offer in our theatres acting and standards of production which are second to none in the world, but if we do not make it possible for people to be able to travel to the theatres, I am afraid that these establishments will be in grave financial difficulty.

My Lords, I appreciate that the policy is to discourage the car and to encourage public transport, but I believe that this is unrealistic, however desirable it might be. Once the car has made an individual or a family free to travel when and where they want, they will not give it up, and every survey shows that families will give up their television, washing machine, everything, before giving up their car. One must, therefore, recognise that the car in our cities has got to be lived with and not banished. If we do not do this, urban renewal and literally urban survival will be a mockery.

8.3 p.m.

Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD

My Lords, the limited amount of road space available to us must be used to the best possible extent. I do not think there will be any disagreement about that in this House. Let us remember that traffic congestion itself causes hardship and also has serious effects on the environment. It causes delays in business and commercial journeys and it hinders the efficient operation of the public transport bus services. In all the discussions that the GLC has had with London Transport that particular point has been paramount; that before we can get the bus services we want, we must create some easement on the roads. That is basic to the policy. The Council's policy of traffic restraint is aimed at reducing the volume of traffic in order to provide greater freedom of movement for essential business traffic, improve bus operations and remove the worst effects of noise and air pollution from the environment. That is the basic policy and that is the objective.

There are, and always have been, many suggestions as to the weapons which should be used. At the moment parking control is the main instrument of restraint policy which the GLC uses and it is directed especially at discouraging those motorists who could reasonably use public transport from bringing their cars into Central London, particularly commuters who merely travel in and leave their cars parked all day. It is not the Council's intention to hamper London's commercial activities, and discussions are constantly being held with the consultative group of the Greater London Chambers of Commerce, the idea being to find ways and means of meeting the parking problems encountered by business users, because we recognise that if the City is to thrive, then the business and commercial community must be able to get about.

The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is of course right to bring up the question of Paris, but the truth is that we have had two different approaches. Paris, in terms of dealing with commerce, is more concerned about the congestion effect. We are more concerned about the environmental effect, and that is basically what the problem is about. For example, if deliveries can be made only in the early morning, then the commercial vehicles must travel at night, and that must involve them disturbing people who are trying to sleep. It is an arguable point, and we have argued several times which approach we should follow, but up to now the approach has been that the environmental effect should be allowed to prevail; in other words, that people should not have their sleep disturbed in this way and that it is better to take the small amount—I accept that probably it is a large amount—of congestion that we must face as a consequence of allowing the environmental effect to be paramount. That is really the approach. I understand Lord Orr-Ewing's attitude on this and I assure him that he has allies on the other side of the river, but the majority view is that the environmental effect should still be paramount.

The Council also recognises the importance of London as an entertainment and cultural centre, and generally does not seek to impose restrictions on leisure traffic in the evenings and at weekends. I am sorry that the experiences of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, have been as he described, but the truth is that normally the supply of parking in the evenings should be adequate, although of course not everyone will be able to park next-door to the theatre, cinema or restaurant being visited. Much of the control of on-street parking, including meters, is relaxed after 6.30 p.m. and many spaces in off-street car parks are available after the daytime users have left. Our approach, therefore, has always been that it should be possible in the evening for people to be able to attend theatres and other places of entertainment without too much difficulty because the control of traffic then is nothing like the control that we enforce during the daytime. If there is need for a further look at the evening period in terms of relaxation, I believe that the Council would want to do that, because it wants people to be free to move around in the evening and to be able to use their cars if they wish.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, the Greater London Council published a very interesting pamphlet of which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will know. It is called Living with Traffic, and among its recommendations is one on page 4 which says, In central London the provision of new public car parking must be generally curtailed. The next recommendation says, The number of temporary car parks in central and inner London should be reduced. If that is the Council's whole policy, how can those who wish to attend restaurants or other places of recreation use something which is to be cut down under that policy?

Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD

My Lords, what I was saying was that, in effect, relaxation takes place in the evening. The control is during the daytime. Although, if the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, was making a case about the daytime, I should have to accept it, in the case of the evening the whole approach is that, having controlled parking very firmly during the daytime, it should be possible to relax that control in the evening so that people can go to a place of entertainment. That is the basic policy.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

May I say that this is exactly what I have been complaining of? The control is not relaxed. The double yellow lines are still inviolable at night.

Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right and I am quite prepared to concede, as the officers in control would probably be prepared to concede, that, in terms of relaxation in the evenings, there may be a case for looking at some of these double yellow lines. There is no question that the policy is that in the evening there should be that relaxation. Having said that, however, I must repeat that it is not so as far as the daytime is concerned.

It was very nice to listen to the figures which the noble Lord gave about the cost of the meters. The truth is that, whatever may have been the original objective, the objective now is to control the traffic. Making a profit is not now one of the objectives of the meters. The objective is to use the meters to prevent those who do not need to use the roads from using them, so that the available road space can be better used. That is basically what it is all about and even the loss of £½ million is cheap compared with what it would cost us to provide additional road space. That is the whole point about the control of parking.

Of course we have deliberately been reducing the number of parking meters and parking spaces. What is more, at this moment we are trying very hard to control the permanent public car parks by a licensing process, because it is necessary to limit them in the same way as it is possible to limit the number of meters. We need to be able to limit them because, in effect, the whole policy is one of making it difficult to park a car, so that people do not bring their cars into Central London unless they have to. We are asking the Government to give us power to control the public car parks. The noble Lord is quite right about that.

We began by thinking that all we needed to do was to provide off-street car parks and the streets would then be clear; people would park and that would be that. We found that it was not so and that it did not work. The car parks merely created additional traffic. All we get is people coming from somewhere else into Central London, parking their cars in private car parks all day and, having created congestion when they came in, creating more congestion when they go out. Therefore, we need to be able to control those car parks. We have not the power at present and we must rely on central Government to enable us to do it. The policy which we have adopted is one of asking to be allowed to licence car parks, because at the present time there are 97,000 parking spaces in London and 51,000 of those are in private car parks in office blocks. Whatever we may think about our ability to use parking as a means of restraint, we are not in a position to do it until and unless we can control the private car parks. I am hoping that the Minister, when she replies, will tell us that we can hope for some support and help in that direction, because it is crucial to the whole issue.

The noble Lord. Lord Orr-Ewing mentioned British Rail. We are constantly in discussion with British Rail about buying services for London. We have just bought services on the Broad Street to Richmond Line which British Rail were going to close. We offered to pay a certain amount to keep the service going, and we are hoping to be able to negotiate a proper figure. This is all part of our policy of providing suitable public transport but at the same time making it possible for all those who are using the roads—that is, both public and private transport—to be able to travel along them. If we merely allowed uncontrolled travel, the roads would not be able to take that degree of traffic. There is a choice between pulling down large numbers of houses to build additional roads or exercising some control.

The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and I are at one on the question of the orbital road. I am hoping that the Minister will tell us that the Government are willing to build that road—Ringway 3 as it was on the original map—around London, because we think that there should be such a road to keep those who do not need to come into London from doing so and to allow them merely to bypass it. It is not a road that we can build. Central Government will have to build it, and it is a question of whether and how soon they are willing to do so.

I have endeavoured to indicate to your Lordships the way the Greater London Council sees this problem. We admit that public transport is not as good as we want it to be. I can assure your Lordships that we have our battles trying to improve public transport and that we are determined to do it. We are determined to make it possible for people to get around London on public transport easily and readily; but we have accepted that, in order to make that possible in so far as the buses are concerned, we must provide some easement on the roads. That casement can only be provided by there being fewer people sitting one at a time in cars.

8.20 p.m.

Lord BROADBRIDGE

My Lords, in rising at this late hour I will try to be as brief as possible. As the clock is not working I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, will blow a digital raspberry every five minutes. I should warn your Lordships that I speak from deeply held convictions and bitter experience, and such matters often require more than a few short sentences to do them justice. I live in the London Borough of Islington; parking facilities are closely related to traffic flow, and a disproportionately large amount of London's traffic flows through my borough; hence, my convictions, experience and bitterness.

The basic problem of London's traffic was well stated in the GLC document Living with Traffic, which has already been referred to, and which was published in March, 1973. It stated, on page 26: In its simplest terms the basic problem of traffic in London is that with its present road system there is too much, particularly in central London, the inner ring, the suburban centres and residential areas. There is no scientific way of deciding by how much traffic levels should be reduced to produce a more pleasant environment…". The document went on to suggest a level of 10 to 15 per cent. Thus, excessive traffic, as we all here know, leads, first, to congestion, and, secondly, a nasty place to be in. The original ideas to combat this were formulated 10 to 15 years ago and relied upon the two policies of: first, provision of public off-street parking, as we have heard, largely to be paid for by metering on-street parking; and, secondly, the active encouragement, as we have again heard, of private off- street parking. Noble Lords will recall that new offices had to provide a substantial amount of parking facility, usually underground, in order to regain the required planning permission of the day.

Thus, it was hoped and, indeed, believed, that the streets would be cleared of vehicles and the traffic would flow. The main emphasis then was on relief of congestion; people were not so worried about traffic loading and environmental effects of vibration, noise, lead in petrol exhaust fumes and so on. Over the period from the early 1960s to the early 1970s this policy was essentially put into effect. What, then, have been the results?—results which I presume have led to the noble Earl's Question to Her Majesty's Government in the form on the Order Paper today.

A year ago, in March 1975 (which is fairly up-to-date as traffic statistics go) the Greater London Intelligence Quarterly published figures which showed the results of measurements, or estimates, of the number of cars entering Central London during the morning peak. I do not want us to become punch-drunk with statistics, but noble Lords may be relieved to know that these will be quite simple. The dates of comparison are 1962 to 1974, a 12-year span. The number of cars destined for public and private car parks in the centre rose by 8,000. Public car parks fell by 15,000, but private ones rose by 23,000. A rise of 8,000 should be seen against a base of 129,000 cars coming into Central London in 1974. But the through traffic had risen by 29,000 cars, from 19,000 to 48,000, over the same period. So there was a net increase in total for all purposes of 37,000 cars coming in during each morning peak, of which 29,000, or 78 per cent., constituted through traffic.

Therefore, partly because of an enormous per capita increase in car ownership, but despite the policy of the provision of more car parking spaces on and off street, flow has increased, and so has congestion and traffic loading. Indeed, this conclusion was endorsed by the findings, published in March 1973 in the GLC document, Living with Traffic, from which I have already quoted, of a July 1972 GLC Paper for public discussion entitled Traffic and the Environment, where there was shown to be a public feeling of an increasing conflict between the pressure of traffic and the desire for a better environment. The Paper, it was said, provoked wide public interest.

The essence of the public reaction was said to be one of strong agreement on the following five points: positive measures are needed to deal with the problem of the ever-increasing demand for the available road space full recognition must be given to the relationship between traffic and the environment restrictions on the car, though necessary, must be accompanied by improvements to public transport better enforcement of traffic regulations is basic to the success of traffic restraint policies heavy lorries are often the worst offenders against the environment, particularly in shopping and residential streets. The GLC accepted these views. There was less agreement on the three points: the priorities to be accorded to traffic in relation to the needs of the environment the priorities to be given to different types of traffic whether existing methods of traffic control are adequate or new methods are needed. However, the GLC believed that new methods of control would be needed, but that there was no simple answer to: the question of priority between different types of traffic, nor to the different economic and environmental needs of the community, one of which is the reasonable use of motor vehicles". The GLC further stated that restraint methods should be both fair and effective, and I am sure we all here agree with this principle. Restraint, it said, should be applied in such a way as to limit traffic which is of the least importance, and the greatest nuisance, and where the journeys can most easily be made by public transport. To gauge the priority to be given to different types of traffic, it set out four broad groups, and these were: First, buses, taxis and other public vehicles—which should be allowed to go wherever required. Second, commercial vehicles and cars making business trips—which as far as possible should be allowed to make the journeys they wish but might have to be excluded from areas where they had no business. Third, cars being used for shopping and leisure outside the busiest hours and the most congested areas—which should be kept away from sensitive areas where they have no business and should only be more generally restrained if they put too large a load on the roads they use. Fourth, cars being used for journeys in the peak hours in congested areas, such as the journeys made by car commuters to work in Central London—which should be the first to be limited. These priorities are, I think, broadly right today.

The GLC stated two principles which it believed should be generally followed: First, through traffic should be directed away from the busiest centres and vulnerable residential areas wherever there are other routes which on balance are better able to take it. Second, the total amount of parking space in an area, on and off the street, must he related to the capacity of its roads to take the traffic generated. I make no apology for quoting the GLC at some length because that body, with the exception of the major trunk roads which are under the DOE, is the executive authority for London's roads together, of course, with the local boroughs.

I should like to reiterate the second point because it is central to the Question before us this evening: …the total amount of parking space in an area, on and off the street, must be related to the capacity of its roads to take the traffic generated". The direct implication is that by March 1973 there was a realisation that the provision of on- and off-street parking space in an area generates and encourages traffic.

This brings me back to the point that if we provide more parking space, we shall encourage the empirically observed situation described by the statistics I quoted earlier; that is, that marginally less cars will drive in to park, but this number will be overwhelmed by the number that find it possible—and free of cost—to pass through. I answer the noble Earl's Question, therefore, by saying that, despite alleged hardship, we must continue to reduce parking facilities in Central London, but with the essential rider that this alone is not a solution.

The only solution is to charge all traffic entering the central area, whether travelling through or stopping. Feasible measures are outlined in the GLC's document, here in my hand, Supplementary Licensing, dated 1974, and I believe these are the measures for which the GLC should be seeking powers. Perhaps central Government should be supporting the GLC, as the Question today perhaps implies. The preface to this document said that it had, …been prepared by a group of officers from the GLC, the Department of the Environment, the Metropolitan Police and the London Boroughs Association. The group was set up by the GLC to assess the practicability and effects of a supplementary licensing scheme designed to give control of traffic to central London by the mid-1970s. However, the GLC has in no sense committed itself to introduce any scheme of supplementary licensing, and is anxious to keep an open mind on the matter until the public and interested bodies have had an opportunity to study what would be involved, and to express their reactions. This publication is intended to give them such an opportunity". Unfortunately and surprisingly, some two weeks after the period for this Paper's public representations had ended the GLC announced that the proposals for supplementary licensing had been dropped. I say "surprisingly" because in March 1973 the GLC, in Living with Traffic, on the reduction of traffic levels, said: Restraint on traffic by parking control alone cannot achieve this. The shortcomings of parking control have been pointed out, the principal one being that it cannot stop through traffic. Indeed even if parking control could reduce the amount of traffic in central London by 10 to 15 per cent., through traffic would increase to take advantage of the less congested conditions and cancel out some of the advantage gained. …A method must be found which controls through traffic. There are two possibilities for immediate consideration: restraint by physical means and restraint by fiscal means… …The success of this form of restraint depends on how much these conditions apply and on traffic response". The study produced a good document, in my opinion—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, is nodding his head in agreement. I think it was thought through in the greatest depth. It was not one of those woolly documents full of principles and good intentions but failing to say who would actually do what, when and to whom. Indeed, it actually illustrated four designs for car window stickers for monthly and daily supplementary licences. They are in the document here. In short, it went into the greatest possible detail.

It is, I believe, very significant that these proposals received the support of LATA, the London Amenity and Trans- port Association. LATA is an association of some 50 affiliated members, these being groups right across the GLC area with amenity and transport interests. In case I am accused of special pleading, I should perhaps state that I am not an officer of LATA, although I am vice-chairman of the Islington Society, a leading borough amenity society, of which I am glad to observe the noble Lord, Lord Castle, is President, and this society is affiliated to LATA. LATA gives the reasons for its support of the supplementary licensing proposal in a Paper of July 1975 as follows—and according to the custom of this House I take personal responsibility for these statements, and gladly, because they happen to agree exactly with my own, less well expressed thoughts. They say: LATA supports the proposal because we are convinced of the need to reduce present traffic volumes in London and we believe that supplementary licensing offers the only prospect of doing so in the reasonably near future. We do not necessarily believe that the arrangements proposed by the GLC are the best. It might be better to extend the geographical scope of the scheme to include some of inner as well as central London or to cover some of the major suburban centres. There might be a case for having the scheme operating for longer hours at least in a smaller area such as the West End. The charges may not be exactly right. We have not been able to consider such modifications of detail, but we regard the GLC's scheme as good if not necessarily ideal". I should also like to quote very briefly their words under a heading "Freedom and Equity"—an area which I believe may be troubling the noble Earl in whose name this Question stands, and since the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has not blown a digital raspberry yet I hope I may do that. They say: Part of the objection to supplementary licensing seems to spring from a dislike of any kind of traffic restraint, a dislike felt particularly by those who cannot rid themselves of the view that the aim of transport policy should be to accommodate as many cars as possible and that any kind of restraint represents an infringment of personal freedom. We have already pointed out that all modes contribute to mobility, especially in London; a restriction on one mode which makes movement as a whole easier should be regarded as increasing rather than diminishing freedom". In summary, my Lords, I believe that the only solution to London's traffic problems lies in a further significant reduction in the total number of vehicles coming into the City, for whatever purpose, but within agreed priorities; and that, broadly, a continued reduction in parking facilities in Central London is an essential part of this solution. Any hardship resulting must be endured for the greater good of all, and particularly for those living in the inner London boroughs. Finally, may I ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to accept my apologies if, first, I have spoken at rather great length and, secondly, if I have to leave without hearing all her reply. I shall, I assure her, read it very carefully tomorrow; but I have a long-standing engagement—one for which I would not be as late as I certainly shall be were London's traffic not so congested.

8.35 p.m.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing have today raised points which highlight a most serious problem which is of constant daily concern to thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of Londoners and people from the Home Counties. We have had very interesting contributions today, putting many sides of the question, and it is fairly obvious to all of us that the modern city depends for its survival on very highly complex technology and support systems; and a sophisticated transport network is clearly absolutely indispensable. A city in which people cannot move around properly is a city in which people cannot live and work properly. All this is doubly true of London, and, given the awe-inspiring magnitude of our capital, the mind really has to get down to thinking what we are trying to do.

My Lords, in mentioning this problem of the motor-car I should like to say that, as a Conservative, I am a believer in personal freedom. I believe in the right to be able to do as many as possible of the things one would like to do. We all know freedom must have statutory controls, or it becomes unbridled licence. But when we get to the question of the motor-car, I often think that noble Lords opposite are living in another world when they begin to lecture the House. I do not accuse the noble Baroness or her noble friend the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, either, of this; but, in general, the Government tend to talk about people who own motor-cars as though they are people who belong to a capitalist age and are capitalists. Those days, my Lords, have long since gone. Today, the motor-car is the prerogative of most people. Only the other day in a debate one of the noble Lords behind the Government Benches spoke to me as though people in the country, agricultural workmen, did not have motor-cars. "How could they afford them?", he said.

My Lords, these days most people have cars. There arc, as your Lordships probably know, 14 million cars in private hands, and there are 2 million commercial vehicles. These figures speak for themselves. The revenue which the Government receive from motorists is, I think, even greater than the noble Earl suggested. My information is that taxes on motoring back in 1973–74 brought in some £2,141 million, and that by 1975–76 the figure had risen to £2,920 million. Furthermore, if The Times this morning is correct, this year's Budget has added another £265 million to that figure, making a total return from the motor industry, broadly across the spectrum, of £3,185 million. What are the Government spending? If I am correct, spending on all roads by both central and local government, on all buildings, road building and maintenance, lighting and its administration, and on parking administration, amounted, I am told, to only £1,200 million in 1975–76. This sum, £1,200 million, is a lot of money, but, compared to £3,185 million, there is a handsome profit.

I merely say to the Government that they cannot complain too much that the roads and motorists are a nuisance. Of course they are, Things which are popular with too many people at the same time become a nuisance. We must learn how to control these things, but, as I have pointed out, there is a handsome profit in their hands. The motorist is contributing. I am not pro-motorist and anti-railway and I am not pro-railway and anti-motorist: I try to be impartial. The railways, apart from the large subsidies put into them as capital, are still costing the Government, over and above fares. £500 million a year. That is another point.

Having made these essential points first, I should like now to consider some more points about London. If the completion of the River Line were possible, it would open up the Docklands and the Thamesmead area and the extension of the Fleet Line to Lewisham would ease many of the hardships for people in South-East London. One must look at these methods of public transport. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, spoke of what the Greater London Council were doing; but, as he said, without Government help nothing can be done. This is the sort of help which the Government can and should be considering.

Many other exciting schemes are offered. A report on the London railways, in particular, was, as the noble Baroness knows, instigated by the Conservative Government. There are suggestions of a Chelsea-Hackney line which, with long-term provision of through running and orbital systems, would be in the long run of enormous benefit. The Fleet Line and Heathrow Link are coming into being now. The Fleet Line is half completed and the Heathrow Link will soon be so. These will help.

To maximise and ease the facility of the London Transport Executive and British Rail services ought we not to be trying to get more through-ticket and more flexibility of season ticket provision? I ask and suggest. Particularly, I should have thought we want to encourage commuters to use London Transport and therefore we should consult with the Railways Board about the possibility of greater differentials between season ticket rates and ordinary fares.

How recently have bus routes been changed? Are we looking at this problem carefully enough? I often wonder why it is necessary for the No. 14 bus always to follow its particular route, or the No. 30 bus to follow its. I agree I am a stupid person. I should hate to think that they would keep changing, for I would lose my way. Nevertheless, there is a case for looking at bus routing carefully. What about a more flexible bus system aligned to present-day schemes? Have we thought about research into a new bus system geared to modern needs, extending the mini-bus and the dial-a-bus systems? These are suggestions only.

I think we have got to agree, despite the times in which we live, in which we have a falling pound and in which we have an all-time-high in borrowing from abroad, that a large measure of public investment is still going to be necessary in London for the transport system. I think we have got to reject ever-increasing subsidies from rates. I accept that the Government must invest. I suggest that the priorities should be for reliability and quality of service which will give value for money. Traffic in London is now flowing as fast as it did ten years ago; and in the central area it is quite considerably faster. With all the increased traffic this is a great measure of improvement and I think the GLC should be given credit for this because credit is due.

As I began by saying, I and the Party for which I stand do not believe in "clobbering" the motorist. It is obvious that in the outer suburbs in particular it is not practical to provide a public transport system that can ever compete with the convenience of the motor-car. Therefore, we must pursue an increasing programme of the up-grading of road junctions and other bottlenecks to remove so much that frustrates the motorist in London. Although we appreciated the dangers of the unrestricted use of the car to the environment we did not spare efforts to relieve residential and shopping streets of the heavy flow of through traffic. I think that the provision of environmental release routes for through traffic is a need we must get vocally expressed by local people. We should always attempt to put any new roads in tunnels and overhead rather than through existing streets. We must reduce to a minimum the conflict between the pedestrian and the motor-car.

Nobody has mentioned today the Hugh Dykes Act of Parliament which provides for the designation of lorry routes. I think that a lot of the problems of London are to be found in this particular point which I should like to see used much more. Only yesterday I got behind an enormously long lorry which had some of the longest iron girders I have ever seen. I felt sorry for the driver of that lorry. He had to get right into the right-hand lane to make a quite small left-hand turn. He had to have someone looking out to see that he was not squeezing another vehicle. It was totally unsuitable for Central London.

My Lords, I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, on one point. He spoke of Paris. I admire the work of the Paris road authorities. They tackle their work totally differently from our way in London. I suppose the Gallic and British systems will always be different. Vive la différence! as they say. Nevertheless, I cannot accept Lord Pitt's theory that environmental issues are at stake if deliveries have to be done at night. My experience is that once one goes to sleep in London one is vaguely used to a background of noise. I do not believe that the odd lorry, passing through or unloading, will disturb the average citizen. If the noble Lord really wants to rid London of day-time traffic blocks, the Paris system of night deliveries is the biggest single contributory factor to that aim. I do not believe that the normal sleeper will be awakened by the average lorry going through. The average workman who is unloading a lorry does not try to make more noise than he has to make. I agree that there is a certain amount of noise endemic to any unloading or loading. Normally it is done on the ground floor; not many people live in areas where there are big shopping centres, stores and factories. I do not accept the noble Lord's condemnation of the Paris scene. It is a scene which we could follow.

Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware of the amount of trouble that we have had over the proposed lorry routes, and the number of people who have complained about the fact that their roads are now designated as lorry routes. If the noble Lord had any knowledge of the extent to which we have had these protests, he would understand why we hesitate to adopt the policy he has suggested.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I totally accept and sympathise with the noble Lord and his friends who have to designate these routes. I know that wherever a route is designated there will always be opposition. But it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Some evils are obviously much less evil than others. It is a hard choice, I accept.

Getting back to supplementary licensing, I do not believe that will be a fair way of controlling traffic in London. I remember a few years ago, when I was in the DOE, going over to the Road Research Laboratory and seeing a black box. There were going to be little electronic devices in London. There were going to be more of them in Central London. As your car passed them another little black box in the car would go "click, click", like a taxi meter, and the more you motored about Central London the more tax you would have to pay. I accept there are such systems. It is rationing by the purse, which I do not think the noble Lord, or his Party, would particularly appreciate; and I do not think it is right, either.

The commuter can be encouraged by other means to leave his car at home. For instance, it is vital, as I have said, that the GLC gets control by Parliament of private off-street car parking in Central London. More must be done to provide free or cheap car parks at outer London stations. If we aim for efficiency, we believe that the commuter can be encouraged to leave his car and, given the first-class public transport system that we are always hearing about and are always hoping is just round the corner, he will be delighted to use it and not feel that he is being penalised. Change by encouragement and not by dictation should be our prime modus operandi. We should consider all these measures very carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, pointed out that business is done by men who have to move efficiently. It is not good enough to be told that there is a bus round the corner which, if you get it, will eventually take you somewhere. A good businessman does not have that time. His time is valuable.

One of the advantages of living in a civilised society ought to be that one can in some way think about what the future is going to bring about, that one may make sensible choices as to a pattern of life which one wishes to adopt based on rational planning and forethought. In this spirit, many Londoners of modest means were attracted out of the centre of London in the 'fifties and 'sixties by the lure of cheaper housing and the proximity of the countryside, thereby affording better conditions in which to bring up their children. These were often the same people who had been attracted by the promises of the '45 Labour Government. In the following 13 years they realised that solid prosperity is a rather more dependable commodity than the most romantic of promises. A basic assumption which all these people who moved out of London made was that they would be able to benefit from travel to work in London by fast, convenient and cheap rail services. It must be stressed that they were encouraged and influenced by successive Governments, and by the Greater London Council.

Today, this picture, as we all know, has changed. It has become very different: the ordinary, hard-working middle class people have, over the past three or four years, faced what amounts to a crisis in their living standards. Their salaries have been restrained and they have had to shoulder increasing burdens of taxation, both direct and indirect. Their children's education has been threatened by dogmatic schemes of reorganisation, occasionally involving the destruction of schools of proven merit and achievement, and at the same time some of them have faced increases of up to 100 per cent. on the cost of their travel season tickets.

The problem of car parking has to be seen in the context of a larger question of a transport policy for the London area. I hope that I can claim the indulgence of your Lordships in ranging over this subject rather widely. At the moment we are rapidly approaching a stage at which we have physical control over the movement of cars into London. These controls, as we know, are congestion and parking restrictions. Few people would argue that we can allow totally unrestricted movement of cars and vehicles generally into London. We know it is arguable that what is required is an impartial study of the question, and much more information is still needed to facilitate rational debate. If, in the future this means a restrictive policy in respect of provision of parking spaces, the corollary ought to be that a free market situation is allowed to develop. At present if a car conies into London with just one passenger, it is uneconomic. If it has two passengers, costs break even. With more than two, economic arguments are strongly in favour of the motor car.

With great respect, I would suggest that the present Government apparently are coming out against the motor car being used, and they are trying to make everyone use public transport more. But as I started off by saying, what they have to realise is that the vast majority of the British population own a motor car and wish to own one. Therefore, all I beg of the Government is that when they assist the GLC in their admittedly extremely difficult task, they do not make a public enemy out of the private motorist. That is a policy which, in my humble opinion, is doomed to failure.

8.59 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, this debate has developed somewhat wider than parking in Central London; but that was probably inevitable once the subject got on to our Order Paper. There are in London alone nearly 2 million licensed cars. I think there can be little doubt that the great majority of those nearly 2 million motorists—whom we accept do so much to help the Chancellor, particularly at a time like this—would support much of what has been said today about the parking problems in Central London. What we have to accept is that in our lifetime the motor car has brought many advantages to the private individual, not least—as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has reminded us—in providing him with personalised transport, the convenience of which cannot be bettered. In warmth and comfort the car can, in our dreams at least, convey the motorist direct from door to door with none of the inconveniences attendant upon public transport, particularly when changes of mode or line may be involved.

However, I think it is wrong for the noble Lord opposite to assume that my Government are against cars and car owners, because it is these very aspects of the convenience of the private car that have been eroded as more and more people own cars but will not at the same time concede the concurrent demands for more road space in our city centres on which to use them. These basic conflicts reflect our split personality—as user on the one hand and urban conservationist on the other. Striking a balance is never easy. But is not this what we are really talking about today? The plain truth of the matter is that the number of cars in London is still growing despite there being less people and fewer jobs. Over the last 20 years the volume of traffic has grown steadily at the rate of about 5 per cent. a year. The sharp increase in the price of fuel oils has resulted in a slight pause in the rate of growth, but the longer-term indications are that growth will continue, even though at a slightly lower rate. There is no doubt that the London roads network has coped surprisingly well with the growth of traffic during the past 20 years. Improved vehicle performance and traffic schemes, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said have even led to slightly higher speeds and greater safety for vehicles than ever before on the roads in Central London.

The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, produced figures of the present-day volume of traffic; but there is a limit to the amount of traffic that can be catered for. Indeed, we must question very seriously whether that limit has not been reached in Central London. There is a consensus that London is now a city with too much traffic for the size of its road systems. To try to cater for unrestricted traffic in London would need a massive programme of road building.

Quite apart from the enormous costs involved, both the Government and the Greater London Council are resolutely opposed to the hardship, disruption, the loss of homes, the harm to the fabric and the widespread damage to the environment that would result from a major road-building programme. In Central London, about which we are most concerned today, no one suggests any longer the creation of new road space as a solution. We learned that lesson years ago.

The policy on which the Government and the Council agree is to make the best use of the present roads by restraining the amount of traffic and by schemes for the better management and improvement of the existing network; and on this, again, we have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge. As my noble friend Lord Pitt has said, the broad aim of the Council's traffic restraint policy is to reduce the amount of traffic congestion in Central London, thereby creating better conditions for pedestrians, for those motorists and lorry and van drivers who really need to use their vehicles in the central area, and so to improve public transport operating conditions to the benefit of users and potential users alike.

One essential element in this strategy is to discourage those parkers who can reasonably transfer to public transport, particularly the long-term commuter parker. It would not be reasonable to expect all car users to transfer to public transport for all their journeys. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has said, car parks, and in particular short-term parking spaces, are required for businessmen who have to use their cars during the day, for people delivering or collecting goods, for employees working unusual hours, for disabled people, and for those people living in areas badly served by public transport. But surely the car commuter who uses his car solely as a means of transporting himself to and from work, when a reasonable bus or train service exists, merely adds unnecessarily to the congestion, and his all-day occupancy of public parking space makes parking so much more difficult for the essential short-term parker. Consequently, many motorists in Central London have to drive around in search of a meter or space in a public off-street car park so often filled by the long-term commuter parker.

Here perhaps I might remind my noble friend Lord Pitt that the orbital road around London is already in the Government's road programme for trunk road construction. It will be the M25 and should be completed by the mid-1980s. Parts of it are already open. As the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, knows, the road programme has been cut in response to pleas from noble Lords opposite, and in another place, to cut back on public expenditure. Therefore we must make use of the Transport Consultative Document to see how best to spend our money to the best advantage of the people in London and elsewhere.

Overall responsibility for traffic management and parking policy, which of course are the main instruments of control in Central London, rests with the Greater London Council. Here I am not trying to pass the buck to my noble friend Lord Pitt, but the Council has powers to make traffic regulation orders regulating traffic and restricting waiting by vehicles and, usually on the application of the London boroughs, to make orders designating parking places on-street where charges are made.

In addition to making application to the GLC for the making of orders designating parking places on-street where charges are made, the London boroughs, as "parking authorities", are empowered to provide off-street parking facilities and to make a charge for the use of these facilities. The parking authorities for the West End are the City of Westminster and the London Borough of Camden. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Pitt has noted the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord. Mowbray and Stourton, about the lorry routes and, equally, that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will have noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, concerning the GLC's difficulties in this respect. One way to control the use of car parks is through the charging structure, subject to the conditions laid down in the Price Code. Local authorities can fix charges within their own car parks. The Greater London Council also has powers to license public car parks in private ownership and can specify the charges to be made, times of opening and closing and the balance to be struck between the number of long-term and short-term parkers. The use of these powers within the framework of price control is being considered by the GLC. Proposals to license car parks in part of the central area have been discussed with Westminster and Camden Councils, and we envisage that charges will be adjusted to give preference to short and medium-term parkers over long-term commuters.

A further element in the Council's restraint policy to reduce congestion in Central London, to improve public transport so that there is no cause to use cars for journeys which could be made by public transport and, also—we must not forget—to provide convenient travel for those people who do not have cars, is a reduction in the number of meters in those congested areas where the Council believes there are too many at the present time. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that the Council has given an assurance that meters will not be removed indiscriminately, but will be taken from congested streets where removal would be in the interest of safety and efficient traffic management, from streets which ought to be freed of parked cars for environmental reasons and from streets where short-term parking is available in nearby public car parks. The Council will take care not to penalise those car users who are vital to London's economic life, who will continue to be provided for at meters and in off-street car parks. The intention is to reduce the number of meters in Central London from 19,000 to 15,000, but of the 4,000 reduction over half will be turned over to residents' parking.

The on-street parking control is virtually complete in the central area, which comprises some 10.4 square miles bounded roughly by the four main railway termini. In addition to the spaces available at parking meters, there are in Central London a further 28,000 spaces in public off-street car parks. Of these, 21,000 are in permanent sites, which shows an increase of 1,000 since 1973. It is the Council's policy to accept such increases only where it can be shown that the parking is necessary, because public transport is unsuitable and cannot be provided for by better use of existing facilities. The remaining 7,000 spaces are in temporary car parks, and this is a reduction of 5,000 spaces since 1973. Renewal of planning permissions for temporary car parks is refused by the Council unless the condition which I have just outlined, that parking is necessary because public transport is unsuitable, holds good.

In putting his Question, the noble Earl made particular reference to the alleged hardship caused to theatre and cinema-goers and restaurant patrons, because of the difficulty of finding somewhere to park in the evening in the West End. The leisure facilities situated in this area of course attract a considerable number of patrons in the evenings, and the growing rate of car ownership inevitably means that more and more of those visitors wish to avail themselves of the door-to-door convenience which the car provides. But motorists have to accept that this is a physical impossibility. Imagine if you will, my Lords, but a quarter of the patrons of any West End theatre trying to park their cars on-street in close proximity to the theatre. Then multiply that by the heavy concentration of theatres, clubs, restaurants, cinemas and other centres of evening activity in the West End, and one very soon realises the difficulties of accommodating all the cars whose owners wish to park on-street close to their destination, even allowing for the partial relaxation of parking controls that applies after 6.30 p.m.

During periods of parking control—that is, from 8.30 a.m. until 6.30 p.m. from Monday to Friday, and from 8.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. on Saturday—and despite the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, told us that there are some 1,600 spaces, there are, in fact, just over 3,000 parking meter spaces available in the West End, which we take as the area bounded by Oxford Street, Kings-way, the Strand, Piccadilly, Pall Mall and Park Lane. Outside the periods of control it is estimated, having regard to the laws of obstruction, that a further 4,000 cars could park on single yellow lines in that area. In addition to this on-street availability, there are off-street parking spaces for a further 8,000 cars in 40 car parks, 3,200 of which spaces are provided in the eight car parks operated on behalf of the Westminster City Council, and my information is that there are at least 1,900 unused spaces in these eight car parks on any evening. If the same ratio applies in the remainder of the car parks in the West End as in those operated on behalf of the Westminster City Council, then on any evening of the week there will be a total of around 4,500 vacant off-street parking spaces available in the West End.

An evening parking survey of that area of Soho bounded by Oxford Street, Regent Street and Shaftesbury Avenue, carried out jointly by the Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council in May 1974 in order to provide an estimate of the evening demand for parking, supports the indications of parking availability for the West End as a whole. Soho, in the heart of the West End, is, as noble Lords know, an area of many narrow streets and presents particular problems for traffic regulation and parking control. Also, it is an area of very high fire risk, and to enable fire appliances and other emergency vehicles to have access to any incident, as well as to allow for the normal flow of traffic, necessitates extensive double yellow lines in that area. But, even so, that survey showed that less than 40 per cent. of the spaces in the off-street car parks in Soho were occupied at the peak time; a little over 800 spaces were occupied out of a total of 2,100. There are 480 meter spaces available in the area and they are well used, but they were never at any time during the survey totally occupied. The same was true of the estimated 650 spaces for cars on single yellow lines outside restricted hours. Yet despite the availability of so much unused off-street parking, the survey showed that there is considerable illegal parking on double yellow lines. On any one evening, something like 600 or more cars will be illegally parked on double yellow lines in Soho alone. Indeed, when the Soho evening parking survey was carried out in 1974 there was a total of 836 vehicles illegally parked on double yellow lines.

I do not accept that this is an indication of a lack of parking space. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. It is, I feel, symptomatic of the selfish attitude of many motorists today to disregard the parking controls which are so essential to the movement of traffic and to ignore the needs of the community at large, in particular the emergency services and public transport which have to move freely and without hindrance.

The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, asked why evening parking cannot be allowed on double yellow lines. I should point out that double yellow lines do not necessarily imply a total prohibition on parking but simply that parking restrictions extend beyond the normal day. There may, therefore, be periods when parking on double yellow lines is permissible, although it is probably true to say that this is rare in the central area. But there will always be plates adjacent to the double yellow lines, and the onus is on the motorist to check at what time he can park on those lines.

As noble Lords will know, the criteria for the laying down of yellow lines are high traffic volumes in relation to street width, the need to prevent obstruction in the vicinity of junctions, the need to prevent obstruction of emergency and essential services, and the safety of pedestrians and other users. Given that any or all of these criteria are met, it is for the Greater London Council to determine the hours during which parking restrictions should apply. If its decision is that such restrictions should apply during the evening or, indeed, at any other time outside the normal working day, then clearly it would be against the general public interest to allow parking on double yellow lines at that time.

In all the circumstances, I cannot accept that there is any serious hardship caused to evening visitors to the West End through lack of parking space, since the evidence which we have clearly implies that this is not so. That the parking space may not be immediately adjacent to the premises that the motorist wishes to visit may well be true, but in no circumstances can I imagine a short walk for any motorist as constituting real hardship. I am sure that the GLC have no immediate plans to impose any further restrictions on evening parking.

The reductions that have already been made and that are proposed for the future by the GLC in the amount of parking space in Central London must be set against, and in the context of, the Council's overall strategy to reduce congestion, to improve public transport and, by an effective pricing policy, to ensure that the long-term parker, particularly the commuter motorist, is deterred and discouraged from occupying parking space which ought to be available, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has said, to meet the needs of those whose business in London depends on their being able to use and to park a car. At the risk of losing the reputation given to me earlier for being sympathetic, I must repeat that the responsibility for traffic management in London vests in the Greater London Council and that that Council has the support of the Government in the direction of the policies that it is pursuing.

Notwithstanding what has been said on this matter today, there appears to me to be no good reason to justify interfering with the way in which the Council is at present exercising its responsibility. However, I am sure that the points which have been raised in today's debate will be taken note of both by the Government and by my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead. But the fact remains, as I said earlier, that there is a limit to the amount of traffic that can be catered for and we must question seriously whether that limit has not now been reached.