§
1 Clause 9, leave out Clause 9.
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but propose the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
§
2 Page 10, line 34, at end insert—
'(3A) Any such Order shall also require councils—
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 and 1201 doth agree with Amendment No. 2 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.
My Lords, the other place have restored to the Bill the clause which your Lordships removed. But, as your Lordships w ill have noticed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has not been insensible to the arguments which a number of noble Lords persuasively put forward in Committee in this House. The clause has been amended to take account of the representations, made by several noble Lords, that the disabled could be unfairly penalised if a local authority introduced schemes to deter long-stay parking. The Government recognise that many disabled people are particularly dependent upon the private car and often cannot use public transport instead.
Accordingly, the clause as reinstated contains a new subsection which requires authorities, when initiating licensing schemes, to consult organisations representing the disabled. And if such organisations object to the scheme the authorities must, in forwarding these objections to the Secretary of State (as they are bound to do), inform him what they have already done to meet the parking needs of the disabled, or what they propose to do. The Secretary of State will then have an opportunity to consider whether the provisions are adequate. If they do not appear to be so, there are opportunities for the Secretary of State to intervene and require the draft regulations to be amended.
My right honourable friend made plain yesterday in another place that he had considered carefully the arguments put forward, in your Lordships' House, in the other place, and by the interests involved, which included those representing the car parking industry, who I myself met, that a public inquiry should be mandatory at the draft regulation stage. My right honourable friend has concluded that there is no case for such a radical departure from traffic regulation practice. Noble Lords may know that my right honourable friend has wide discretion to intervene in traffic regulations proposed or made by a local authority and, if he does so, may order a public inquiry to be held. Moreover, his discretion as to whether or not to order an inquiry in the case of draft 1202 regulations to license privately operated public car parks is an inherent feature of the system (in the Transport (London) Act 1969) which has already been extensively debated in and sanctioned by Parliament. Nevertheless, the Department of Transport will issue clear guidance that the powers to license privately operated public car parks should only be used to relieve the most congested urban centres where local authorities are already using their existing powers to control parking to the full.
My right honourable friend gave a very clear undertaking yesterday in another place, and I quote from col. 68 of Hansard of yesterday's date where he said:
In deciding to reintroduce the clause, I have carefully considered the argument put forward in both Houses and by the interests involved that a public inquiry should be mandatory at the draft regulation stage. I have concluded that there is no case for such a radical departure from traffic regulation practice—that will not he news to the House. Moreover, my discretion as to whether to hold a public inquiry is an inherent feature of a scheme already extensively debated and sanctioned by Parliament. However, my Department will issue guidance which will make it clear that the power should be used only to relieve the most congested urban centres where local authorities are already using their existing powers to control parking to the full. In other words, this power will not he perversely exercised. I do not believe that it would be, but this is a safeguard which I think that the House will welcome, and"—the Secretary of State went on to say:I give my undertaking in that respect. If any authority proposed to use the powers in other circumstances, I would consider very carefully whether there was a need for me to intervene".It is accepted on both sides of the House that we cannot cater for the demand for road space in urban centres solely by expensive and disruptive road building schemes. We have to ration road space in as equitable a manner as possible. To do this, local authorities need a range of powers available to them. They are already able to impose waiting restrictions and to influence the use of both on-street and some off-street parking space by the prices they charge, but their inability to control privately operated off-street car parks is a serious gap in their powers which this clause seeks to fill. I invite your Lordships to accept the clause as amended by the other place. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree 1203 with the Commons Amendment No. 2 to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Stedman.)
§ 3.7 p.m.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, I do not want to trouble the House unnecessarily, but first I want to protest at the way in which this House is asked to consider these matters. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, raised the question of the availability of information to your Lordships. I thought that his protest was slightly misplaced because the responsibility for the organisation of information in the Printed Paper Office is not the direct responsibility of the Government. It is a matter for the domestic arrangements of the House which are outside the Government's control. However, the matter which we are called upon to consider arises in somewhat different circumstances. The responsibility for the arrangement of business both in another place and in this House is within the control of the Government. That is really what Government means—that they control the business of the House. For another place to consider the Amendments which were included in the Bill by your Lordships up to a fairly late hour last evening—I do not know to what hour, because the whole of the report is not contained in yesterday's Hansard—is a matter for another place. This morning I wanted to see what had been said, because I am very interested in Clause 9, but I could not get hold of a copy of Hansard until very late. Also, I wanted to inquire about what the Government propose to do in connection with the matters with which another place have either agreed or disagreed. Again the information was not available.
I am not going to come to your Lordships' House and be treated like a child. The same thing applies to other Members of this House. We need to be treated at least as an adult Assembly. Information should be made available to us in time for us to read it, not just five minutes before we come into the House or, for that matter, an hour before we come here. We should have an opportunity to consider it and to consult others of perhaps like mind, or others who may not be in agreement with us. At least we should be given adequate time in which to consider matters which are of great public importance, and not, as it 1204 were, be rushed into it. It happens at the end of every Session, under every Government, that we are asked to consider legislation in this hotch-potch sort of way. This is the key to thoroughly bad, unrevised legislation and if one of your Lordships claims that this House exists as a revising and perhaps a delaying Chamber, I would not mind staying an extra week—always providing, of course, that we can rise by August 12th. That is an important date in all our lives, although so far as am concerned the date comes a little later and is connected with the Ebor Handicap rather than with grouse. But be that as it may, whatever the issue and whatever the time of the year, the Government should so arrange our affairs that this House is given adequate time to consider the matters brought before us. Of course, it is a matter of judgment as to what is adequate time.
Turning to Clause 9, I regretted the action of the Opposition in taking out that clause because I was pretty sure that what the Government were going to do would be promptly to put it back again, which of course is what has happened, with a sympathetic gesture (which has my wholehearted support) towards the disabled. But let us take the Secretary of State's last argument in the Hansard report of last night, when he said that these are matters not of political philosophy hut of judgment. I am sorry, hut I should have thought that even matters of political philosophy were sometimes the concern of a judgment, even to the Secretary of State. I have to exercise some judgment on it and what I see in front of my eyes here in London is that the road building programme which ought to be keeping abreast with the claims of public and private transport is not in fact taking place.
Today is the new date for T registrations, when masses of new cars will be let loose on the streets and a corresponding number will not be taken out. As sure as night follows day, if more and more cars are put in and a corresponding number are not taken out and the number of road spaces does not increase then the basic fact is that you can do one of two things with the roads: you can either go on them or stop on them but eventually you will not be able to do both. That is the perilous point which we are almost reaching every day in the centre of London—a situation in which we can neither stop nor go. We 1205 have a traffic problem which is of such immensity and complexity that one day we shall get into a fuzz and we shall not be able to get out of it. It will not be possible to get out of it by taking a line in this direction or that direction.
I am as anxious as anyone in this House to accept the assurances of the Secretary of State. Indeed, we have little alternative at this stage of the Session but to accept his assurance. Unfortunately the form is not all that good because when in fact this clause existed for the GLC which was in political power preceding the present Council, it proceeded to act quite regardless of public opinion because there was an enormous volume of protest at the action which it proposed in relation to parking. One would have thought that that was a subject on which, from the point of view of the exercise of common sense, if not of political philosophy, the Secretary of State would have ordered a public inquiry. He did nothing of the kind. Now I think the Secretary of State is a sinner who has come to judgment, and I hope he is a sinner converted. He now says that these powers are necessary and that they will be extended only to cities outside London in circumstances in which he is absolutely sure they are right. I accept that, but I think it would have been far better—if a form of words could have been found—if this had been incorporated in the Bill. On form, when there was a cast-iron case where he should have ordered an inquiry, he did not do so.
I am fortified by the noble Baroness because I know very well that she would not be a party to giving this House an assurance unless she was absolutely sure that such an assurance would be kept both in letter and in spirit. Therefore, I accept what the Secretary of State has said, but I think it would have been far better if this important measure had been included in a wider measure. I do not join my voice to that of the Opposition in striking a carping note on that point because at this time in the Session the Government had no alternative—given the state of the political game—to do anything other than that which they have done.
I say again, I have no option but to accept the assurance, and that I do with 1206 out reservation, but I hope that in the future whichever Administration, of whatever political colour, sit on the Government Benches they will take into account that this House, so long as it continues in being, ought at least to be worthy of consideration—and this is not only from my point of view but it follows the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, yesterday—and this House and all its Members should be able to have ready access to relevant information so that not only do they bring judgment to bear hut it is a mature judgment.
§ 3.16 p.m.
§ Lord CHESHAMMy Lords, there have been times when I have not altogether agreed with what I have heard fall from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg.
§ Lord CHESHAMMy Lords, I can do no more than echo the noble Lord's sentiments, but on this occasion I am genuinely pleased to do so because I think the points that he started by making, as they were made by my noble Leader on a previous subject a little earlier this afternoon, are valid and important to this House. This time I unhesitatingly say that I thoroughly agree with the words that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I think that the jolly "Bumps supper" kind of attitude which the noble Lord the Leader of the House brought into his earlier argument, although it may be end of term, nevertheless is another example of the sort of high-handed disdain with which a lot of us feel the Government are treating what we thought were some rather good democratic Parliamentary practices which are usually followed in this country. I think that the indecent haste with which this Bill is going through, and the pressure on others, is certainly worthy of protest even if there is nothing more that we can do about it at this stage.
On the subject of Clause 9, on which I had something to say on Second Reading, this piece of paper before us is headed "Commons Reasons for Disagreeing". I understand what the title says, and it does not actually have to state any Reasons in the case of this clause, but I think your Lordships will feel that it would at least have been interesting to 1207 know some good Reason for the Commons to disagree with what your Lordships wished to do. However, no such Reason has been advanced on the paper and neither did the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, deal with the matter in her speech. Instead of which she reiterated the slightly hackneyed argument which—God bless her!—she had to put on Second Reading and subsequently. Being extremely courteous, as she always is, she wrote me a long and detailed letter after the Second Reading in which (no less) she set out at full length what she had already said in the Second Reading debate. That, boiled down into an egg-cup, amounted to: "It said this in the White Paper and so it must be right". If I may be allowed to say so, that was the summary of the argument.
Now, if there are no Reasons given for the Commons to disagree with this, I will enlighten your Lordships. Perhaps some of your Lordships listen to a feature on the radio called "Yesterday in Parliament". Incidentally, that is a feature which many people regard as a self-inflicted Paliamentary wound, but we will pass over that. It actually revealed that the only Reason stated why this Clause 9 was reinserted by the Commons was that it had been a good idea 22 years ago and therefore it was still a good idea now. I thought that was quite astonishing. It may have been somebody's idea 22 years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, the Minister of Transport at the time was the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, as he now is. I would have doubted whether it was his idea. His immediate predecessor assures me that it was not his. So whose idea it was at the time I do not know. All I would draw to the attention of the noble Baroness who is to reply is that, if it can be argued that 22 years ago it was held to be a good idea and so it still is a good idea, 22 years ago a very large number of people would have regarded it as a very poor idea, as indeed they do today; and I think that argument is just as valid and we are just as entitled to stand on our rights. I should like to say that I would not have the slightest opposition to, but only approval of, the Amendment inserted by the Commons; it is absolutely splendid. But I do not think they could have really known what they were doing in putting back this clause. As has been said, there 1208 is nothing that we can say or can do about it, but at least it is worth saying.
§ Viscount SIMONMy Lords, I should like from these Benches also to support broadly what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said. I differ from him only in one respect, respectfully; that is, that he wished noble Lords on this side of the House had not passed the Amendment to eliminate Clause 9. I point out that, had that not been done, the other House could not have introduced the Amendment which we all welcome, giving special consideration to the position of the disabled. Indeed, it was on those grounds that I invited my noble friends to support the Amendment, so that the Government and the other place could have a chance of introducing an amended clause to meet some of the criticisms that had been made. I certainly hoped that they might introduce some other Amendments on a broader scale, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, suggested, but I do not think we should refuse to accept this Amendment, which personally I welcome. I think everyone in your Lordships' House will welcome it, and will recognise that that could not have been included had we not rejected the clause in the first place.
§ Lord O'HAGANMy Lords, perhaps I could start by adding to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and my noble friend Lord Chesham have said about the availability of information to Members of this House—all Members of this House. While I arrived early enough to catch a copy of the Hansard of another place, I did learn how difficult it is to thread the labyrinth, as a Member of the Opposition, to find out what the other place has said late at night when their Hansard has reached cut-off point. After a series of interesting journeys, I discovered that it was possible to go and have a look at the overmatter in the House of Commons Library. I say that to alert those of your Lordships who did not know it, and to point out to the authorities that this is not the most satisfactory way for a busy Member of this House to have to inform himself as to what was decided late last night in another place if for some reason he or she could not be there at the time.
This is a subject that we have debated at some length and with varying degrees of intensity all the way through the Bill, 1209 and I do not propose to start all over again. The Secretary of State, for some reason known best to himself, is passionately devoted to this particular clause and he obviously has decided that nothing that anyone can say, with whatever knowledge, will change his view. I suppose that can work both ways, but in order to save your Lordships' time I should just like to record our gratitude that the interests of the disabled have been properly considered and included in the Bill as a result of what we said in this House; I am sure we are all extremely glad that this is now so. Otherwise, I think the best thing for us to do is to say, "Well, here was a case where we did our best to make the other place think again, but unfortunately the Minister was beyond conviction". He said himself that he was impervious to any argument, and I quote:
I have to say, and I say it with reluctance and no disrespect to the other House, that I found no new inspiring or persuasive ideas in what was said in the debate in the other place".I have read the debate on Clause 9 and I have read what the Minister said, and I feel just the same about him. I think that is where we should leave it today.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, may I, first, apologise to the House for the fact that Hansard of the other place was not available. It is not any of my doing, but perhaps the fact that I was able to provide galley proofs when we were considering devolution seems to have inspired the idea that I might perhaps be able to supply galley proofs for what happens in another place as well. I think noble Lords who have commented have a very valid point; it is something which I, and no doubt they, will bring to the attention of the Lord Chairman, and perhaps our Offices Committee might have a look at it in due course.
I am very glad of the welcome which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and others have given to the Amendment which has included the help for the disabled. I am sure that is one good thing which has come out of sending this clause back to another place. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, referred to the highhanded disdain with which we appeared to be treated by another place and said that he 1210 did not know why they had disagreed. I thought it had been explained initially that we wanted to include this in order to assist those authorities who needed the powers for their traffic management. This House then took out the clause. That is still the reason why the other place have put it back. We feel that these powers are essential for just a handful of authorities. We do not anticipate that they will be widely used, but they may be used and they may be a very useful adjunct for just a handful of authorities. Perhaps it was a good idea 22 years ago, and like the noble Lord I do not know who was responsible for the good idea as long ago as that. I was not, anyway. But we still think that for these few places it is a good idea. I hope noble Lords will accept the Amendment.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.