Road Traffic Bill

HL Deb 07 May 1991 vol 528 cc984-1064

3.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 22 [Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 37: Page 17, leave out lines 46 to 50 and insert: ("(5) Any approval given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section shall be given subject to conditions as to the purposes, manner, kinds of places and any other circumstances in which any prescribed device is to be used. (5A) Any such approval as is mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be given having regard to the requirements of section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. (5B) Before giving any such approval as is mentioned in subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the representative bodies of highway authorities.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to Clause 22 dealing with camera technology. It will be recalled by the Committee that at our Second Reading there was approval all round the House for the adoption of camera technology with regard to prosecutions for speed offences and also to observance of the red light. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, as well as speaking to Amendment No. 37, I speak to the consequential Amendment No. 38.

Amendment No. 37 substitutes for subsection (5) new wording which is almost the same as that in the Bill but slightly changed to provide for the insertion of new subsections (5A) and (5B). There is no disagreement on the conditions required in subsection (5), but the new subsection (5A) has an additional requirement to have regard to matters in Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. They relate to the powers of the Secretary of State and local authorities to give road safety information and training.

Section (5B) sets out that: Before giving any such approval … the Secretary of State shall consult with the representative bodies of highway authorities". I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is essential that there should be the closest co-operation in the use of this technology between highway authorities and the police. The second amendment is consequential. A somewhat similar amendment was moved in Committee in the other place and the Minister appeared somewhat sympathetic to the points raised. He said: the Home Office and Department of Transport will consult those organisations soon to work out guidelines for the implementation, covering such issues as siting, signing, cost and operation".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 22/1/91; col. 103.] This intended co-operation was to be in connection with guidelines. As we see from our amendment, it goes much further than guidelines. I hope that it will be possible, in the light of the provisions I mentioned, for the Government to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that local authorities should be consulted about the implementation of the Bill's provisions for the use of enforcement technology in their role as highway authorities. I can assure the noble Lord that it is the Government's intention to draw up guidance on how the introduction of technology should be managed. It might be necessary to draw up separate guidance for different aspects of implementation, for example, on the operation of the devices for the police or siting of the devices for highway authorities. But there would be a common element in all of this which sets out the road safety objectives and the need for close liaison at a local level between the different agencies involved—the police, courts and local authorities. With this in mind, the Home Office and the Department of Transport will be consulting representative bodies of these groups with a view to working out guidelines. It would not be appropriate for all these aspects to be covered in the type of approval which is intended to set down standards of accuracy and reliability for the equipment. That is why we believe that separate non-statutory guidelines will be needed to address more general matters related to the implementation of these provisions.

Turning to the question of the use of evidence from the devices in court, I do not believe that it will be necessary to provide defendants with an extract from the vehicle record in advance of the hearing. That would add further unnecessary bureaucracy to these procedures. It will of course be open to the defendant to bring evidence to show that there was an error in identifying the vehicle from its registration plate. We do not need to provide for that in the legislation. I hope in the light of these assurances that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw these amendments.

Lord Underhill

I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances he has given although I note that he did not make any specific reference to the points I made regarding Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, I shall read very carefully the Minister's remarks, which seemed to be rather promising. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Interim disqualification]:

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 39: Page 22, leave out lines 6 to 14.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 39, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 40. This amendment simply clarifies the effect of a period of interim disqualification on the length of disqualification which is ordered on sentence. It is intended to make it clear that the periods of disqualification imposed for two or more offences for which sentence is passed at the same time should all be reduced by the interim period. This will ensure that the sentence will always take account of the period of disqualification which the offender has already served.

The amendment also makes it clear that references to disqualification elsewhere in the legislation should usually be treated as references to the full period before the reduction is made. I invite the Committee to support this helpful amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 40: Page 22, line 18, at end insert: ("(12A) Where on any occasion a court deals with an offender—

1. (a) for an offence in respect of which an order was made under this section, or
2. (b) for two or more offences in respect of any of which such an order was made,

any period of disqualification which is on that occasion imposed under section 34 or 35 of this Act shall be treated as reduced by any period during which he was disqualified by reason only of an order made under this section in respect of any of those offences.

(12B) Any reference in this or any other Act (including any Act passed after this Act) to the length of a period of disqualification shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to its length before any reduction under this section.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988]:

Lord Clinton-Davis had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41: Page 68, line 12, leave out ("Level 3") and insert ("Level 4").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is not altogether dissimilar to an amendment that was moved in another place save that the amendment moved in another place referred to imposing a penalty of five years or a fine, or both, whereas this amendment seeks to add the words, 1 year or a fine or both". The North Report stated: We received comments, particularly from some Police commentators, that the current relationship between the penalties for failure to stop and for drinking and driving encouraged a driver involved in an accident, who thought he was over the legal limit for alcohol to drive off without stopping. Even if the driver was subsequently identified"—

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Is the noble Lord speaking to Amendment No. 41 or No. 42?

Lord Clinton-Davis

I apologise to the Committee. I am not moving Amendment No. 41; I am moving Amendment No. 42.

[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 42: Page 69, line 15, leave out from ("substituted") to ("and") in line 16 and insert ("1 year or a fine or both").

The noble Lord said: I am grateful for the vigilance of the Minister. If I had continued, Heaven knows what might have happened to the Chamber and everyone in it. I am now moving Amendment No. 42. I shall repeat the extract from the North Report as it is highly relevant: We received comments, particularly from some Police commentators, that the current relationship between the penalties for failure to stop and for drinking and driving encouraged a driver involved in an accident, who thought he was over the legal limit for alcohol to drive off without stopping. Even if the driver was subsequently identified and prosecuted for failure to stop, he might well escape with a lesser penalty".

The difficulty with the situation at the moment is that there is a large disparity between the penalties for failure to stop and those for other offences. The comparison that is most vivid in this context is that between the proposed new penalty for hit and run offences—that is, six months or level 5 on the standard scale, or both—and the maximum for the new offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The explanation that was given by the Minister in another place, which may or may not be repeated here, does not answer my query. I agree with the Government that the five-year period which was suggested in an amendment in another place created a penalty that was too substantial. I hope the Minister will agree that to suggest one year's imprisonment is much more reasonable. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. I start from the position that failure to stop after or to report an accident are serious offences. We have therefore accepted the North Report recommendations of increased penalties. Schedule 2 of the Bill provides a period of six months' imprisonment. However, I do not think it would be appropriate to increase the penalty to one year's imprisonment. If there is evidence in a hit and run case that the driver was at fault through his standard of driving, a charge of dangerous driving can be brought. That will then carry a maximum of two years' imprisonment. Equally, if a death is caused or there is evidence of drink-driving, the driver can be charged with the substantive offence. Where there is no evidence of any other driving offence being committed, however, I believe that a penalty of one year's imprisonment would be disproportionate to the offence. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I am not altogether convinced by that reply. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 43: Page 69, lin0e 27, leave out ("In").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 43 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. These are technical amendments which result from the change to the penalty points attributable to offences which involve obligatory disqualification. Schedule 2 amends the penalty points from four to a range of three to 11 for those offences where a court decides exceptionally not to disqualify. While we consider it would be extremely rare for penalty points to be awarded in a manslaughter case, we believe that the penalty points available should be consistent with other offences involving obligatory disqualification. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I thank the Minister for that explanation. However, I hope he will say why the Government are proposing to drop the minimum penalty from four to three points.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

We are doing so to achieve a greater range. We now have a range from three to 11 points whereas previously it was fixed at four points. I am not suggesting, except in the most exceptional circumstances, that three points would be imposed, but it is useful to have that flexibility.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 44: Page 69, line 29, after ("etc)") insert ("shall be amended as follows. (2) In the entry relating to manslaughter or culpable homicide, in column 4 for "4" there shall be substituted "3-11". (3)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 [Penalty points to be attributed to offences]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 45: Page 23, line 31. after ("offence") insert ("in the last column of Part I").

On Question, amendment, agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Courses for drink-drive offenders]:

The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 46: Page 25, leave out lines 27 to 32.

The noble Viscount said: The amendment seeks to delete subsection (2) of Clause 29 which provides for an offender's period of disqualification to be reduced if he satisfactorily completes an approved course. I say at the outset that I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a Division. I merely seek the opportunity to discuss one or two issues which have emerged in discussions between the Department of Transport and those who have presented submissions to it.

The background to the Government's concern about drinking and driving and the amendment is that there are a number of drink-drivers who repeatedly offend. It is generally accepted that the highest risk group is young men under the age of 30 who are skilled or semi-skilled. However, offences among those of an older age group—those between 40 and 50—seem to be on the increase, whereas it appears that those among the younger age group, although at an unsatisfactorily high level, have reached a plateau.

Those who are concerned about the Government's ideas for an approved course, about which we know very little, question whether the criteria of two or more convictions, a blood alcohol level of 200 mg or more and a refusal to give a sample are the right criteria on which to assess whether a driver is a high risk as regards drinking and driving. In the case of young men under the age of 30 those criteria are probably a useful guide to re-offenders. However, for the older age group it is generally accepted among medical practitioners and others involved with the problem of drink-driving offences that the assessment of what is a drink problem among those who drive is a more complex matter and requires a more thorough assessment.

Experience in West Germany has revealed a marked reduction in repeat offences among drink-drivers involved in model programmes which have been introduced there, particularly among older drivers. The treatment which is available in Germany includes counselling. The reduction has been about 60 per cent. in the case of those over 50 years of age, 38 per cent. for those between 35 and 50, and for those between 25 and 35 there was a markedly lower reduction of about 20 per cent.

An assessment procedure has been proposed to the Department of Transport by eminent medical representatives. It has been suggested that those identified as having serious alcohol problems should be screened out before offenders attend the courses. It has also been proposed that doctors on the Department of Transport's list of medical practitioners should assess offenders using the same procedures as the high-risk offenders scheme; namely, a questionnaire filled in by the offender and the doctor, and three medical tests. For some reason—perhaps the Minister can throw light on this—the department has consistently rejected such an assessment procedure, despite the well-publicised West German success in this area. The existing rather rough and ready criteria, such as the high blood alcohol count and refusal to give a sample, seem to be inadequate.

It is proposed by the Government that the scheme should be self-financing, paid for by the drivers themselves. The North Report assessed the cost of courses as in the region of £150 for each offender. It is now generally agreed that that was pitched too low. Another issue concerns who would organise the courses. I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on that aspect, too. I imagine that they would be organised by the probation service and voluntary agencies dealing with alcohol abuse, among others. They would be likely to have difficulty in raising adequate funding for start-up costs in the preparatory period when no income would be coming in.

The timescale proposed by the Government is remarkable when one considers the experience in Germany and the United States, which was reviewed by the North Committee. It is remarkable that the experiment which the Government have outlined should require six years. That will mean that, without assessment such as I have described as being desirable, the government scheme would not start before 1999 at the earliest. Is it not possible for an experiment to be brought forward to offer a larger number of rehabilitation courses in the first year in order to provide more evidence on which to work at an early stage?

I reiterate that it appears that a course of rehabilitation for drivers who have been convicted of drink-driving offences, involving both education and counselling, is essential. It might perhaps be augmented by an income-related charge on the drivers themselves. Reducing such offences will save lives. The figure may have changed, but I believe that the Department of Transport estimates the cost to society of each road fatality as about £600,000. I do not deny that a national programme of the kind that I have outlined, with proper assessment and education, would be expensive. However, set against the cost to society and the resulting reduction in grief and misery of families who lose a member of their family in such a way, a relatively expensive programme would seem a small price to pay. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I fully understand the points made by the noble Viscount. I am grateful to him for affording me an opportunity to give the Committee a little more detail about how we see these rehabilitation courses operating. We all condemn drink driving. We have no wish to see drink-driving offenders get off lightly, but that is no part of the proposed experiment in rehabilitation. We must remember that these courses are designed to educate and to change attitudes. They will have no effect if participants do not wish to benefit from them. In common therefore with other court disposals with a rehabilitative purpose such as probation and community service, the court may make an order only if the offender consents. There must therefore be an incentive for offenders to attend courses. This is particularly important when the offender will be expected to pay a fee for the course as a demonstration of his commitment.

The noble Viscount referred to the funding of the courses. I expect that offenders will pay for the cost of the courses themselves. It should be within the means of those. who can afford to run a car and drink.

A reduction in the period of disqualification seems to me to provide a proper incentive. The reduction will be no more than a quarter of the total period of disqualification and it will have to be earned by successful completion of the course. The courses are aimed at reducing recidivism rates. If successful, the benefits will not be simply to individuals but to society as a whole. I am conscious that if these courses do not have a significant effect on rates of reoffending, the offender's reduction in his period of disqualification will not be matched by any wider benefit. That is why we propose a carefully monitored experiment in selected course areas. We shall not be activating the powers for a wider scheme if we are not confident of the benefits. But experience from abroad gives us grounds for optimism.

Therefore I hope that we have struck the right balance between on the one hand the need for punishment, which will continue to be reflected in both disqualification and fine, and on the other hand incentives to rehabilitation, with road safety benefits which will accrue to us all.

The noble Viscount queried the length of the experiment. Courses are likely to last at least eight to ten weeks. A three-year experiment is needed to study a sufficient throughput of offenders. A further three years is needed to complete the experiment by monitoring the recidivism rates. I understand that that is why the experimental period is as long as it is.

The noble Viscount also asked about the course organisers. A wide variety of organisations has expressed an interest in running these courses. We are confident that they will be able to operate successfully on a self-financing basis, as happens, for example, in certain states in the United States of America.

So far as concerns the assessment criteria, we do not believe that medical assessment prior to attendance on the courses is appropriate. We are looking at courses which can be attended by all who are considered suitable by a court. These are not medical programmes of a kind particularly suitable for high risk offenders. They are intended to educate offenders in the effects of drinking and driving.

I hope that I have answered sufficiently the questions raised by the noble Viscount, but I shall of course read again with care what he said this afternoon.

The Viscount of Falkland

I thank the Minister for answering the points that I raised. I shall read what he said carefully, as indeed will others who have an interest in this field. I think that where the department and others who are concerned about the Government's plans are most anxious and perhaps differ to a greater degree is in the area of assessment. The problems of assessment and the need for assessment will probably become clearer the more quickly the Government's courses become operative and as more evidence on which to base any further adjustment becomes available. I feel confident that assessment will be a very important part of this area.

There are many who drive motor cars and have alcohol problems. They may be going through what the experts in this field call the period of denial, which means that everybody else knows that they have a drink problem but they themselves do not acknowledge it. It may be extremely helpful outside the whole area of drink driving, although it will be enormously helpful and effective there, for families to have the additional impetus of an assessment made under the Department of Transport scheme. It will enable them to push into treatment people who clearly have a problem; those whose fellow employees in business cover up for them when they come back from lunch clearly incapable of doing an afternoon's work; those who are difficult to live with at home; and so on. Those are the people who drink and drive cars. They are a problem and sometimes cause grave accidents.

Nevertheless I thank the Minister for his courteous and detailed answer, which I shall read with great interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Disqualification until test is passed]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 47: Page 29, line 29, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 35 and insert ("for a period not less than twelve months").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss also Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the new retesting provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 more into line with the North Committee's recommendations. We seek, first, to widen the scope of mandatory retesting to include all offences involving disqualification for 12 months or more (that is the amendment to line 29) and, secondly, to require any retest to comply with the North double-length test, which concerns the other two amendments.

Clause 31 requires the court to order an extended driving test for a limited range of offences. That would exclude the excess alcohol offences, notwithstanding the fact that they comprise something like 50 per cent. of all disqualifications for 12 months or more. North recommended that retesting would be an appropriate course to take in respect of offenders who had a substantial period of disqualification and where the conduct of the driver brings into question his competence as a driver. It would also be a warning and an opportunity for self-correction.

North also recommended that it should be mandatory for the courts to be able to prescribe extended driving tests wherever misconduct attracted a disqualification of 12 months or more; and further, that the courts should have a discretion to order a retest as a penalty for any offence attracting a possible 12 months' disqualification, even though the court may not impose such a disqualification in the circumstances.

The rationale is that going back to the status of a learner driver and having to exhibit L plates and be accompanied by another person when driving represents not only an inconvenience but also an embarrassment. That, therefore, represents the point of the penalty.

At page 219 of the report, North had this to say: While retesting would then be a disposal which the courts should have discretion to use in many cases, we believe that, at a certain level of seriousness, misconduct attracting disqualification should also attract an obligatory retest, partly because of the seriousness of the offence, partly because of the time which the offender will have spent off the road. We set this level at a disqualification for 12 months or more. This will mean among other things that virtually all drink drive offenders will have to take a further test after their disqualification has expired. We see this as a requirement which will come to be a substantial deterrent to drinking drivers, and one which reflects the growing seriousness with which society, we believe, views their conduct". I think that that is right. It is a pity that the Government chose not to go down the same route. The trouble is that the Bill does not follow those recommendations. The amendments delete all references to specific offences. They provide that in all cases a re-test ordered by the court, whatever the circumstances, shall be an extended driving test; that is to say, the driving test would be extended from the normal 45 to 90 minutes. It would be similar to tests that are provided for drivers of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles. Therefore there is good precedent for deploying such tests.

The Minister in another place resisted a somewhat similar amendment and therefore resisted the North recommendations. He asserted that both the North recommendations and the amendment were "well intentioned but misguided". With respect, that is no argument. Bare assertions do not necessarily amount to naked truth. We shall expect rather more from the Minister in this Chamber. We are entitled to ask: Why does the Minister say that North's proposal in particular was well intentioned but misguided? Perhaps the Minister considered an argument that was put to North: that the normal test might not prove to be suitable in all situations. The question is posed in paragraph 18.30 of the North Report: Will not such a person drive like a lamb during his test —he has every reason to do so—and revert to his old and irresponsible ways immediately he has passed? However, North having posed the question, still argued that the remedy that I put forward today is the appropriate one. In such circumstances learner tests should amount to more than a mere test of mechanical handling; they should also deal with attitudinal matters.

The Minister in another place also said that it was the Government's intention initially to restrict mandatory extended re-tests to manslaughter and the new dangerous driving offences; and, in the light of experience, to consider extending the mandatory requirement. My submission is that when the court imposes disqualification for 12 months or more it follows that the offence must be regarded as very serious. It evidences the fact that the driver is incompetent, irresponsible or both. That aspect goes to the very heart of my proposal today.

The Minister sought to distinguish "drink drivers" from other bad drivers. He asserted that in such cases the standard of driving was not always the principal issue; rather, that it raised an attitudinal problem to which I have already referred. Perhaps I may give further and better particulars in answer to that. If one sends offenders to rehabilitation courses it does not guarantee any change in drink-driving attitudes because—speaking bluntly—it is not apparent that such courses are altogether successful. Moreover, they are available only to those offenders who are deemed to be suitable by the courts. Many driving offences have as much to do with attitudinal problems as with deficiencies in driving skills. Consequently to exclude drink-driving offences but to include manslaughter does not seem to make a lot of sense. To ignore risks to other road users or to pedestrians whenever drink driving offences are committed—and those risks are always inherent in such situations—equally makes no sense.

The real argument of the Government in opposing the proposals is economic. At the present time there are only about 1,000 instances a year where magistrates' courts have the.discretion to order a re-test, whereas if the North recommendations were applied the figure would increase dramatically to about 100,000 re-tests for drink-driving offences alone. Surely that factor demonstrates how inadequate is the exercise of discretion currently being applied by the courts. No one can be satisfied with 1,000 re-tests in circumstances where the situation is extremely grave.

In another place the Minister also said that the Government would make resources available as and when necessary. Therefore it follows that the argument of a substantial increase in the number of re-tests is not a valid reason for opposing the amendment.

The Minister also argued that to double the length of time of all re-tests would be unfair to elderly drivers who may have committed a relatively minor offence. That may have certain echoes of support in this Chamber. The facts, based on our experience, are encouraging to elderly drivers. They are that very few are likely to be encompassed by disqualification for 12 months or more. The statistics establish that quite conclusively. But it is stretching credulity to assert that disqualification for 12 months or more results from a relatively minor offence. That cannot be so.

In conclusion, I argue that re-testing and re-training have to be seen as penalties and therefore as deterrents. That is wholly appropriate where circumstances indicate that a driver by his serious conduct—and I have indicated that disqualification for 12 months or more must be as a result of serious conduct—may have vitiated the competence that is implicitly created when he passes his L-test. I believe that such deterrents are likely to be more relevant than a fine, which is the penalty most frequently deployed by the courts. We believe therefore that re-testing and re-training need to be added to the armoury of deterrents available to a court. After all, fines are limited by ability to pay. Imprisonment is one of the most expensive ways of dealing with such situations. Probation and social work places the resources available under very great strain. I believe that it is a sensible proposal. I beg to move.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because it is an issue: to which I referred at Second Reading. I too have sympathy with it. My name should be included on all three amendments, not only Amendment No. 47.

I consulted my colleagues at RoSPA on the subject. They are very keen on the idea. They tell me that there is little evidence that a double-length driving test achieves a better driving attitude. All it is likely to indicate is whether or not the candidate is able to keep up the act for twice the length of time. RoSPA is serious about trying to rehabilitate such drivers. It believes that we should look more at the psychological testing techniques now available and should set up a trial using such techniques to establish whether the driver in question is suited to use potentially lethal motor vehicles on the public highway.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, introduced the amendment more cogently than I can. I support his amendment and look forward to my noble friend's reply.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton- Davis, has explained, in practice the amendments would have two important effects. The first would be to subject all disqualified drink drivers and all other drivers disqualified for more than 12 months to compulsory re-testing. The second effect would be to provide that all re-tests provided by the court should take the form of the new extended test. I understand the motives behind the amendments. However, as my honourable friend in another place said, I think that they are misguided.

It is our intention initially to restrict compulsory re-testing to the dangerous driving offences in which the deficient standard of driving is a major component of the offence. A further extended test is a useful discipline here in determining whether an offender should be allowed back on the road at the end of a period of disqualification. The penalty is not simply being used as a deterrent.

The issues on drink-driving are different. Drink-driving is a menace. I have no disagreement with that. But it is a different type of offence. The offender is being punished for driving when he should not have done. He is not necessarily being punished for driving badly; and it is not clear that a retest would necessarily serve any purpose except to add a further penalty. That was a plank in the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Of course, there are drink drivers for whom a retest is appropriate. In those cases the courts can use their discretion to order one. Furthermore, we are taking a power to extend compulsory retesting by order. In the light of experience we shall consider whether that power should be used and for what offences. I am sure that that is the right approach.

The courts' discretionary power to retest does not depend on a disqualification of 12 months or more. It is open to the courts to order a test when anyone is before them for an offence punishable by discretionary or obligatory disqualification.

It is also misguided to make all retests extended tests. We have provided in the Bill that the most serious offences which carry obligatory disqualification should attract the extended test and that those offences which carry discretionary disqualification should attract the ordinary test of competence to drive. I think that distinction is important, particularly in cases such as those of elderly drivers who may have committed a relatively minor offence. In such cases the courts will wish to decide whether to exercise their discretion to order a retest. The extended test would be too big a stick. I should be reluctant to do anything which would discourage the courts from using that discretion.

The noble Lord referred to the length of the test. He will wish to bear in mind that the courts already have and will continue to have wide discretion to order retests. That is not always intended to be punitive nor is it a response to irresponsible behaviour. More often it is ordered in cases where a court is worried that an offender's powers may be failing, perhaps as a result of age. Would it be right to subject such people to the new extended test?

I agree that the amendments address the serious problem of drink-driving. However, I believe that they propose an inappropriate solution and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. He has reiterated what was said in another place by the Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Chope. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, for his authoritative support. It comes from RoSPA, and no one can question that organisation's credentials. Therefore, the issues need to be regarded more seriously than either Minister has yet been prepared to do. The Minister is also saying that North

is misguided about the issue. There is potent evidence from North, from RoSPA and from the opposition in support of my propositions.

The Minister agrees that drink-driving is a menace. However, he chooses to say that it is a different type of menace from that of driving badly. He did not argue, nor could he, that it was anything other than grossly irresponsible and that it could lead to anything other than the most tragic consequences. I believe that putting a person convicted in such circumstances through the trials and tribulations of retraining and retesting must be taken more seriously by the Minister.

I am a little puzzled. The Minister appeared to argue that the situation as predicated by Clause 31 was a matter of experiment and that experience might lead the Government to extend the provision. However, that experience is limited to a small number of cases. The retests are mandatorily extended to manslaughter and to the new dangerous driving offences. It follows that the number of cases will be small and will bear little relationship to the issues that we are now considering. In any event, that experience will take a long time to gain.

The number of manslaughter and dangerous driving offences is small. Perhaps the Minister will indicate how many cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving there have been during the past year. Approximately 150,000 people per year, two thirds of whom are drivers affected by drink, will be able to regain their licences after 12 months without invigilation as to whether they are suitable.

There was a contradiction in what the Minister said. At one turn he said that my proposal is misguided. At another turn he said that the Government will look at the matter in the light of experience. Therefore, if he is not excluding the possibility it is difficult to see that the proposition is misguided. I should like to hear what statistics the Minister has on the matter. If he cannot explain them now perhaps he will write to me. Can he indicate the number of people who will be exposed to the tests under Clause 31? I do not propose to test the Committee today but shall return to the matter at a later stage. However, I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to inform the Committee about any available statistics.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

When taken together manslaughter, causing death, and dangerous driving offences—that is, those covered by compulsory tests—are likely to be between 6,000 and 7,000 per year.

Lord Tordoff

On this occasion I am in agreement more with the Minister than with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. There is a qualitative difference between the two types of offences. It is possible to be a competent driver but to be driving in a manner which is dangerous because one is under the influence of drugs or drink. Therefore, it is necessary to wean people away from driving under such influences. Having done so it is probable that they will be competent drivers. I accept that both instances are dangerous and may cause a great deal of damage and mayhem.

My noble friend Lord Falkland has suggested that we ensure that people are rehabilitated and weaned away from their drinking habits. I believe that will correct the drunken driver who will then be capable of driving as well as the next man. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to take a retest.

4 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

It will be very interesting to find out the likely cost of the rehabilitation proposed. It will also be very interesting to know what success is achieved in that regard. I do not exclude that possibility; indeed, I welcome it.

I cannot agree that there exists a qualitative difference, for which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, argues. He seems to be saying that one can be competent but irresponsible. I believe that the sort of irresponsibility which we are considering in this context is such that the deterrent penalties which I seek to introduce would prove to be of considerable value. They would have a major effect in deterring such crimes.

Having regard to what has been said by the Minister and other Members of the Committee, I shall consider the matter before Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Conditional offer of fixed penalty]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 50: Page 34, line 20, leave out ("75(6) (a)") and insert ("75(8) (a)").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

Clauses 34 to 39 agreed to.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 52: After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:

("Charges for suspensions of parking spaces

.—In section 49(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted "to make such charges as may be appropriate for such suspensions" after the word "order" where that last appears in that section.").

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has asked me to move this amendment as she is abroad.

I understand that on-street parking places—mainly, parking meters and residents' parking bays —often need to be suspended for a variety of reasons such as domestic removals, builders' skips and road works. The effect of that suspension is to make it illegal for public parking while the suspension is in place. At present a number of local authorities make a charge for the suspension of on-street parking places, meters and residents' bays to cover administrative costs and the loss of income. That charge is based on an interpretation of the present law and has been the subject of a query on a number of occasions although it has never been subjected to a legal challenge.

A number of councils believe it is reasonable that authorities should have costs reimbursed and that an explicit power to charge would clarify the law once and for all. The new clause attempts to achieve that. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is deputising for his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. However, I should like him to clarify one matter for me. The amendment refers to Section 49(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. When I refer to that I find that it empowers: the local authority, the chief officer of police or any other person … to provide for the moving, in the case of emergency, of vehicles left in the parking place; to suspend the use of the parking place or any part of it on such occasions or in such circumstances as may be determined". It seems to me that this amendment seeks to make charges in cases where the individuals concerned have no responsibility whatever. The section covers the removal. of a car in an emergency and yet the amendment suggests that charges should he fixed for such a suspension.

Lord Tordoff

In principle, I support the amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, moved it on behalf of his noble friend Lady Gardner. When I saw that she was not in the Chamber, I was about to move it on her behalf.

One sees so many occasions when the suspension of parking bays is abused by contractors of one sort or another One need go no further than Great Peter Street to see what has been happening there over the past yea r. On one side of the road the pavement is taken up by contractors. There are skips along the side of the shuttering which has been erected. The parking bays have been suspended on the other side, and contractors' vehicles are parked down that side of the road. Frequently it is impossible to get through Great Peter Street. Attempts which I have made to use the hotline to Westminster council have proved totally abortive.

Considerable disruption is caused on the suspension of parking bays, not merely to the people who wish to park their cars there, but also to people going along th.2 highway. I believe that a cost should accrue to people who have the privilege of suspending parking places.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I have some sympathy with the principle underlying this amendment but I regret that I am not able to accept it. It was a recommendation of the TAPWORK report—which was the product of a joint working group of the Department of Transport and the local authority associations—that it would be right in principle for those who request the suspension of designated parking places for commercial reasons to reimburse the local authority, though there may be good reasons for exempting statutory undertakers and emergency services. The New Roads and Street Works Bill, which is now in the other place, establishes the principle that highway authorities should be able to charge public utilities for costs such as those associated with making traffic orders and erecting signs.

I believe it is reasonable, as a first step, to consider the operation of the principles in the New Roads and Street Works Bill, when enacted, before considering their extension to the recovery of charges from other bodies for purposes such as those covered by the present amendment. If this consideration were to show that there are overall benefits to he obtained from such an extension, then the Secretary of State could use his existing powers to make appropriate regulations under Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. An amendment to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is not required. I suggest that we should keep the situation under review. I assure my noble friend that should we decide to act, an amendment to this Bill is not required. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded by that to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tordoff

Will the Minister assure us that the Government will look at this seriously? This is a great problem, particularly in our inner cities. Will the Government assure us that they will look actively at this problem?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I can give that assurance. We have already taken a similar situation in hand in the New Roads and Street Works Bill.

Lord Swinfen

I do not know the answer to the queries which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. This amendment was thrown at me rather late on Thursday evening by my noble friend who suddenly found that she would be abroad today, the timing of the Committee stage of this Bill having been changed. However, I shall draw the noble Lord's queries to her attention.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his support. I thank also the Minister for the faint hope which he gave. I shall withdraw the amendment but reserve the right for my noble friend to bring back a new amendment if she believes that to be right at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 52A: After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:

Variations of charges in off-street car parks

". After section 36 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (which deals with charges at, and regulation of, parking places) there shall be inserted—

"Variation of charges at parking places

36A—(1) Where, by virtue of section 36 of this Act, any charges have been prescribed by a designation order or by an order under that section, the authority making that order may vary those charges by notice given under this section.

(2) The variation of any such charges by notice is not to be taken to prejudice any power to vary those charges by order under section 36 of this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed by any local authority giving notice under this section.

(4) The regulations may, in particular, make provision with respect to—

1. (a) the publication, where an authority propose to give notice, of details of their proposals;
1001
2. (b) the form and manner in which notice is to be given; and
3. (c) the publication of notices.

(5) In giving any notice under this section a local authority shall comply with the regulations.").

The noble Lord said: First, I apologise to the Committee that there is an error in the amendment. The amendment states: After section 36 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984". It should in fact refer to Section 35. As I do not intend to press the amendment today, that is rather academic. Nevertheless, one should think in terms of Section 35.

The amendment is fairly self-explanatory with the footnote. At the moment Clause 39 introduces a simplified procedure for varying charges for designated parking places. The new clause seeks to extend that procedure to changes in the level of charges in local authority car parks off-street. At present if a London borough—I am advised by the London Boroughs Association whose chairman we hope to welcome to our Benches shortly—wishes to increase the level of its parking charges, it needs to go through a lengthy procedure prescribed in the Road Traffic Regulation Act. The authority must first make an order to vary the charges and that has to be widely advertised in the London Gazette and the local press. The belief that advertising in the London Gazette gives the matter a wide circulation always surprises me. It certainly was not regular reading in the part of London in which I used to live.

Any objection must be considered and the order must then be formally ratified by the borough council. In Clause 39 a simplified procedure is introduced for varying on-street charges and a regulation-making power is created which allows the Secretary of State to specify the form of the procedure to be followed in varying charges. That will allow for a more flexible and streamlined system. The new clause seeks to extend the new procedures to the variation of charges in local authority car parks off-street. There seems to be no reason why the benefits of Clause 39 should not be extended to car parks. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The new clause introduced into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by Clause 39 of the Bill is restricted to changes in the procedures for varying charges at on-street parking places because these places in London are the main topic of the parking provisions in Part II of the Bill. However, the Government accept that the arguments for introducing the new clause after Clause 39 can be applied with equal force to changes in off-street parking charges.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, the present amendment is defective in that it refers not to Section 35 of the 1984 Act but to Section 36, which concerns parking on roads; but the Government are prepared to consider whether a suitable amendment might be brought forward at Report stage. Such an amendment would be without prejudice to consideration of further amendments covering off-street parking. That is a separate issue and we shall be debating it with the noble Lord's proposed amendments to Part II of the Bill.

I hope that the noble Lord will welcome those remarks on his present amendment and be content to withdraw it.

Lord Tordoff

I not only welcome them, I am delighted by them. I apologise for the error in the drafting. I am sure that when the amendment comes back from the Government it will be better drafted in more ways than one.

I accept what the Minister says: that this is not in any way grouped with the other amendments which deal with off-street parking. That is why I specifically did not seek to group them in our discussions today. I am grateful to the Minister and I look forward to the Government amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 52A.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.15 p.m.

Clause 40 [Parking attendants]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 53: Page 39, line 27, leave out from ("may") to end of line 30 and insert ("provide for the supervision of parking places within their area by individuals to be known as parking attendants. (1A) Parking attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other enactment.

(1B) A parking attendant shall be—

1. (a) an individual employed by the authority; or
2. (b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a parking attendant.

(1C) Parking attendants in Greater London shall wear such uniform as the Secretary of State may determine, and shall not act as parking attendants when not in uniform.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 53, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 169.

Clause 40 inserts a new clause after Section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in order to provide the local authorities with a clear general power to appoint parking attendants. Amendment No. 53 will enable parking attendants in London and elsewhere to enforce parking restrictions in special parking areas—which are provided for by Amendments Nos. 160 and 161—as well as the new "permitted" parking controls provided for in Part II of the Bill. We shall be debating those amendments later in the context of Part II. Amendment No. 53 will also make it clear that local authorities can employ private parking contractors if they wish; and will provide for parking attendants in London to act only when in uniform. Amendment No. 169, which, with your permission, I will take with Amendment No. 53, introduces a consequential change to Clause 72. It defines "parking attendant" by reference to Clause 40 as amended by Amendment No. 53.

The new Clause 63A(1A) arises from the decision to enable London authorities to enforce parking restrictions in special parking areas. It provides the means by which parking attendants will have the power to enforce parking and waiting regulations in a SPA approved by order of the Secretary of State. Where a SPA order is agreed, for a borough or part of a borough, the order itself will then be an "enactment" which can confer the necessary additional enforcement functions on the parking attendant.

The new Clause 63A(1B) makes it clear that local authorities in London and elsewhere may employ private contractors as parking attendants. It is an important part of government policy that local authorities should provide local services as efficiently as possible. We want to see local authorities acting as enablers, not necessarily as direct providers of service. Enforcement of permitted parking controls will represent a significant activity in many areas. It will the represent be important for the authorities and the communities they serve that those services should be provided in as efficient a manner as possible. That may well suggest that they should test the market for the possibility of contracting out. Naturally, where private parking contractors are employed as parking attendants, they will be subject to the same controls and safeguards as those applying to parking attendants employed directly by the local authorities. It will be for the local authorities to satisfy themselves about the suitability of those attendants whose services they obtain under contract, in the same way as they will for those attendants whom they will employ themselves. And the Secretary of State will expect to be satisfied about the local authorities' arrangements before he sanctions the introduction of the new parking system in London. Once the arrangements are established, they will be subject to the safeguards provided by the system of parking adjudicators.

The Government have listened carefully to the debates in this Chamber and in the other place about parking attendants' uniforms. The new Clause 63A(1C) provides that parking attendants in London shall wear a uniform determined by the Secretary of State, and that they shall not act as parking attendants unless they are wearing that uniform. It follows exactly the principles in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which govern the provision of uniforms for police traffic wardens. It contains the important principle that enforcement action should not be undertaken unless the enforcer is wearing his or her official uniform. Thus enforcement action could be void if the proper uniform is not worn.

Although the clause provides for the Secretary of State to determine the parking attendants' uniform, I should make it clear that the Secretary of State does not intend to rule out scope for appropriate local variation. Rather, he has in mind determining the need for key features. Those will be expected to include clear identification as a parking attendant, identification of the local authority on whose behalf the attendant is acting, and a personal identification number. He might also prescribe a requirement for basic garments. But he does not wish to be over prescriptive, and will wish to take account of uniforms already worn by local authority parking attendants. There is at present no case for the Secretary of State to determine the uniforms of local authority parking attendants outside London, since their functions are not affected by the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

In general, we are in agreement with most of the provisions in Amendment No. 53. The noble Lord will recall that there was considerable discussion during Second Reading on the question of uniforms, training and other matters relating to parking attendants. However, I am a little concerned about what the Minister said in regard to subsection (1B) (b) which concerns persons being contracted to do the work. I ask what consultations will take place in drawing up guidelines. It is essential that there should be proper guidelines; parking attendants will be important people doing an important job for the community.

I do not know whether I read the Bill correctly, but in subsection (1C) reference is made to parking attendants in Greater London wearing such uniform as determined by the Secretary of State. When I examine the Bill, I note that there is a definition of the meaning of "local authority" as applicable to that section. The meaning shall be that set out in Section 32(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. When I turn to that section of the Act, it makes clear that it is referring to competent local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland.

Unless I am wrong, local authorities throughout England, Wales and Scotland can appoint parking attendants. If that is so, why should it be laid down that attendants only in Greater London must have uniforms? Surely all parking attendants in all local authorities which decide to adopt this procedure should have uniforms. Traffic wardens throughout the country have the same uniforms. I am certain there will be objections if parking attendants in different parts of Great Britain wear different uniforms, some of a non-district character.

Perhaps the Minister could say whether my interpretation is correct. If it is not, perhaps he could point out to me where I have gone wrong.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I welcome the provisions of the amendment so far as Greater London is concerned. Perhaps my noble friend will answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as to whether uniforms can or should be prescribed for parking attendants outside London.

I rise also to ask my noble friend a question. Is any offence committed if someone wears a uniform that is either the same or broadly similar to that prescribed for a parking attendant? If an ill-disposed person were wearing a uniform which could well be mistaken for that of a parking attendant it would greatly facilitate the commission of certain offences. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is any provision, either in this Bill or elsewhere, for preventing unauthorised people dressing themselves up as parking attendants and interfering, perhaps dangerously and maliciously, with vehicles and their owners.

Lord Tordoff

To extend something that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, I am not clear where there is a definition of Greater London in the Bill. I thought that the Government had abolished Greater London some time ago. I think we all know what is meant by Greater London, but where is there a definition of it in the statute?

Lord Swinfen

I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that Part I of the Bill referred to the country as a whole. Clause 40, to which this amendment appertains, is in Part I. Therefore, why is this being limited to Greater London?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

On the question of why this applies to Greater London only—and we normally refer to the London authorities and the City, that being the definition—there is no case at present for the new subsection to cover local authority parking attendants outside London, since there are no firm plans for them to assume the same responsibilities as attendants in London. If a general power enabling the London parking provisions to be extended to other parts of the country were added to the Bill, this clause would need to be suitably modified.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, there is no offence of impersonation but, if a parking attendant were impersonated, enforcement would be void.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Perhaps my noble friend can go further than that. I fully understand that the enforcement would be void, but would the person impersonating a parking attendant by wearing a uniform he guilty of an offence? In other words, is there anything to prevent anybody from doing that?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am told that there is no offence of impersonation, but my noble friend makes a very good point. It is a matter that I shall look into.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, decisions about contracting-out parking attendants will be for the local authorities. Advice on the key features of parking attendants' uniforms and possibly training will be included in the Secretary of State's parking guidance to the London authorities. Outside London there will be no change in the attendants' responsibilities.

To add to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, Greater London still exists as an administrative county.

Lord Swinfen

Before the noble Lord sits down, London is not the only area with serious parking problems. I do not understand why this provision is being made for London alone. Surely parking is just as difficult in many other parts of the country and proper supervision is just as important, sometimes more so.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

In due course we shall be coming to an amendment which seeks to extend the parking provisions outside Greater London. Perhaps we can deal with the matter then.

Lord Underhill

I still do not think the Minister has satisfied me in answer to my question. Clause 40 reads: (1) After section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, there shall be inserted— Parking attendants (1) A local authority may appoint… (2) In this section 'local authority' and 'parking place' have the meanings given by section 32(4) of this Act". As I have already stated, Section 32(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 refers to local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland. There is no limitation to London.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am not sure whether I can go any further. I shall certainly look carefully at the question the noble Lord has raised and I shall write to him if there is anything I can add to what I have said so far.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 54: Leave out Clause 40 and insert the following new clause:

("Parking Attendants

40. After section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted…

"Parking Attendants.

63A.—(1) A local authority may appoint, with or without remuneration, such officers and servants as they think fit for the supervision of parking places in their area.

(2) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice (The Secretary of State's parking attendants code) with a view to co-ordinating the action of local authorities with respect to parking attendants.

(3) Before issuing or varying any code of practice under this section the Secretary of State shall consult—

1. (a) such organisations representing local authorities as he thinks appropriate,
2. (b) such organisations representing the employees of local authorities as he thinks appropriate,
3. (c) any Chief Officers of Police, and
4. (d) such other persons and organisations as he thinks appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State's parking attendants code may, in particular, include provision with respect to—

1. (a) appropriate training for parking attendants,
2. (b) appropriate forms of dress for parking attendants while on duty, and
3. (c) appropriate means of identification of parking attendants.

(5) It shall be the duty of any person appointed under this section to identify himself on request and to provide information—

1. (a) within Greater London, as to the rights contained in section 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and
2. (b) in any other case as to the proper officer to whom any complaints regarding a parking attendant or parking charges or both, should be addressed.

(6) Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall be evidence that any parking charge was improperly levied or, as the case may be, that the parking attendant was not acting within his authority.

(7) Nothing in this section shall be taken as conferring power on a local authority to contract out any of the duties and responsibilities contained in this section or, contained in the Secretary of State's parking attendants code.

(8) The Secretary of State's parking attendants' code may be varied at any time."").

The noble Lord said: It may be thought that this amendment is linked to the previous one, which we have agreed, but Amendment No. 54 covers a large number of points most of which were dealt with by noble Lords in our debate on Second Reading—that there shall be proper training, consultation and forms of dress and that there shall be appropriate means of identification, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.

It may be necessary to make adjustments to the amendment at a suitable stage, because it seems to us that consultation and guidance are better left in the hands of local authorities. But I should like the Minister to deal with the various points under the headings in Amendment No. 54 so that we can treat it as a probing amendment to see how the Government would view such provisions being put into a Bill which goes far beyond Amendment No. 53 which we have just agreed.

Lord Tordoff

While I appreciate the thinking behind the new clause, I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the Association of London Authorities has some problems with the amendment. It feels that the code of practice should be constructed locally rather than written on to the statute in the name of the Secretary of State. Its view is that it would easier if the Secretary of State were required to produce advice for local authorities to make their own codes of practice. As a decentraliser, I have sympathy with that idea, though I have great sympathy with the details contained in the noble Lord's amendment in terms of training, dress, identification and so on.

4.30 p. m.

Lord Underhill

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I gave the proviso that it may be best if these matters were left for guidance and implementation by local authorities within the local government structure. Having said that, there are still important points on which we should like the Government's view as to whether these are matters that the Government would accept, or whether they have queries on them. It goes far beyond Amendment No. 53, which we have just agreed, and covers points that many noble Lords raised in our Second Reading debate as being essential concerning the appointment of parking attendants.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

In replying to this amendment I am happy to cover the points raised in it. We have already discussed some of the issues in connection with Amendment No. 53, which the Committee has just accepted. I have explained why the Government believe it is important that the local authorities should have the opportunity to contract out for 1 he services of parking attendants. I repeat that it is an important part of government policy that local authorities should provide local services as efficiently as possible. The employment of private contractors is likely to contribute to meeting this policy and I believe it would be wrong to deny local authorities access to such contractors if they believe they can provide a suitable service. The private sector has a legitimate part to play, and is already doing so both on behalf of local authorities and the Metropolitan Police.

I have also introduced a new provision which requires that parking attendants in London should wear a uniform determined by the Secretary of State and that they should not act as parking attendants unless they are wearing that uniform. Although we propose that the London authorities should have some flexibility over the provisions of uniforms, I have said that the uniforms will need to include such key features as identification as a parking attendant, identification of the local authority, and the attendant's personal identification number.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not see the need for the Secretary of State to issue the local authorities in London or elsewhere with a code of practice about the employment of their parking attendants. It will be for the local authorities to satisfy themselves about the suitability of the attendants whom they employ or whose services they obtain under contract, in the same way as they do for other areas of work. The Secretary of State will be issuing parking guidance to the local authorities in London, after consultation. The guidance will cover such matters as training and uniforms; and the Secretary of State will take the local authorities' proposals in these areas into account before he sanctions the introduction of the new system of local authority parking control.

The Bill does not affect the position outside London. Functions of parking attendants there are unchanged. We have no-evidence of any need to issue local authorities outside London with any guidance about the execution of their present parking enforcement activities. Parking attendants in London will be identified by the features of their uniform. Clause 65 of the Bill, as we are proposing to amend it by Amendment No. 132, will provide that, on payment of the wheelclamping release fee, motorists are to be informed of their right to make representations to the relevant local authority and, if they are not satisfied with the response, to appeal to the parking adjudicator.

In regard to subsection (6) of the proposed amendment, it will be obvious from the parking attendants' uniform, and from any penalty charge notice which the attendant may issue, which local authority is responsible for the parking controls. That is already the case, for example, in Westminster where contractors operate as parking attendants on the authority's behalf. Furthermore, the penalty charge notice will provide the local authority's address. Therefore, I do not believe that subsection (6) is practicable. It would not, for example, be possible to prove that a parking attendant had not been adequately trained. No similar provision applies to traffic wardens, who are responsible for enforcing the criminal law. Sufficient safeguards are already supplied by the Bill as drafted and by the added requirements provided for in government Amendment No. 53 with respect to uniforms. That should, I hope, cover all the points in the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Underhill

I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the various points contained in this amendment. I shall not go back to the position of Greater London and other areas because the Minister has promised that he will write to me on that matter; though in view of his remarks I was a little intrigued by what is contained in subsection (5) of this amendment which states: (a) within Greater London, as to the rights contained in section 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and (b) in any other case". Does that mean in any case other than in Greater London? If that were so, there may be a further reason for me to await with great interest to see what the noble Lord writes to me on whether or not this provision covers areas outside Greater London. I am grateful to the Minister for his information, which we shall read carefully and see what action to take at the next stage. In the meantime, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Monson

I wonder whether this might be an appropriate point for me to put a question to the Minister? I apologise if it has been raised earlier, but I have only just returned from abroad and could not get here earlier. Are there any plans afoot to outlaw the practice of paying parking attendants on a piecework basis? That is, to pay them according to the number of parking tickets issued as opposed to paying them on a normal hourly, daily or weekly basis.

Paying parking attendants on a piecework basis, as I understand occurs in the City of Westminster, can lead to every sort of abuse and should not be tolerated. Can the Minister give us some information on that point?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

That is a different issue from the one we have been debating. So far as I am aware there are no plans to change arrangements. As I said just now, it is up to the local authorities if they use contractors to do this. We think that contractors can provide a good service. Obviously they have to abide by the rules laid down on when they can issue tickets, and those rules will be strengthened by features in the Bill, including the new parking adjudicators.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 55: After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:

("Extension of parking provisions to areas outside Greater London

.—(1) In this section expressions to which meanings are assigned by section 72 of this Act have the same respective meanings and "highway authority" has the meaning given by section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 but does not include a London authority.

(2) On the application of any highway authority the Secretary of State may by order provide that the provisions of sections 57 to 69 of this Act, or of any of those sections, shall apply to that highway authority and to the area of that authority as they apply to London authorities and to London subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order.

(3) For the purposes of any order under this section the Secretary of State may, in relation to the highway authority which has applied for the order and to the area of that authority, amend or repeal any provisions of sections 57 to 69 of this Act, as so applied, or amend or repeal the provisions of any Act mentioned in Schedule 6 or Schedule 7 to this Act in so far as the provisions so mentioned are inconsistent with the contents of the intended order and in particular the Secretary of State may make provision for

1. (a) the issue by the Secretary of State of parking guidance after such consultation (if any) as he thinks appropriate;
2. (b) the appointment of parking adjudicators by such means as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate; and
1010
3. (c) the issue of penalty charge notices.

(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument by which that power is exercised shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes a new clause. I say at the outset that the Opposition welcome the idea of enabling London boroughs to enforce decriminalised parking offences on roads which do not comprise main arteries or roads serving them. The Government deserve congratulation. What we are now talking about is seeking to extend that idea to authorities outside London.

A Home Office chaired working party went into this question. It was concerned with enforcement powers not simply in London but throughout the country. The working party agreed —I imagine that everybody in this Committee agrees—that the situation in London is more serious and more acute than elsewhere in the country. Nonetheless, there was significant evidence—and I shall come back to this later —which emphasised the high level of unenforced parking contraventions in areas outside London.

The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when writing to the local authority associations announcing the Government's reply to the working party report (at that time he was responsible for parking enforcement) said: We have decided that change to the operation of parking enforcement outside London would not be justifiable". Regrettably he gave no reasons for that conclusion, and that conclusion was, to say the least, thoroughly unsatisfactory.

At Committee stage in another place the Minister for Roads and Traffic said on 5th February, at col. 329: There is not sufficient evidence to warrant changing parking regimes outside London, but that will be reviewed in the light of experience of the coming months and years in London". At Report stage, on 26th February (cols. 872 and 873) he said that the report of the Home Office working party, concluded that the problem was in London and that although it is not true to say that there are no problems outside London, we should tackle the problems there first". He went on to say: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a flexible attitude to the subject and that if he were persuaded of the need to extend these powers outside London he would have no hesitation in introducing the necessary legislation. At this stage there is no case for proceeding in that manner".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/91; cols. 872–73.] What it comes to is that the Government have to be persuaded that the evidence supports the view that there should be an extension to London; and presumably from that comment, that they have an open mind about the matter.

The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which supports this new clause, does not demur from the view that the parking enforcement problems in central London are much worse than elsewhere in the country. I have already indicated that that is the position. Clearly urgent action needs to be taken in this capital city to deal with the problem. But there are, as the association asserts—it has considerable experience in this field—serious problems elsewhere. There are problems in urban areas, where the position is at r resent rapidly and markedly deteriorating. The extension of the powers proposed for London to other areas should not wait until there is a possibility of further legislative time.

We believe that the Bill is the right vehicle for dealing with the matter now. We all know, particularly those who have been in ministerial office, that it is not easy to obtain the necessary time for legislative proposals of this kind. I hope the Minister will not use the argument about the wrong vehicle. There could not be a more clear and well defined vehicle in which to deal with this matter.

I am encouraged to some degree by the fact that on 28th March, in reply to a Written Question in another place asking what representations he had received concerning the extension of proposed London traffic measures to all metropolitan districts and whether he would make a statement, the Minister for Roads and Traffic said: Thy: Department has received representations by and on behalf of a number of local authorities outside London for changes to be made to the Road Traffic Bill so that the new, decriminalised parking regime for London can be available elsewhere. We are considering these representations".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 28/3/91; col. 511.] The door does not appear to be shut. I hope the Minister will not shut it today.

It was in the light of the response by Ministers to similar new clauses tabled in another place that we are now considering this new clause. What we have to consider, as I have indicated before, is the evidence that is Available concerning the situation other than in London. Joint police highway authority studies on parking enforcement in Sheffield and Rotherham were commissioned by the Home Office working party on parking enforcement. I shall not weary the Committee with the full details of the results of those surveys, but suffice it to say—I do not think the Minister will disagree with what I am saying—the surveys show that only a minute proportion of vehicles found on yellow lines in those particular areas had been served with a parking ticket. In response to that finding the police said that the contraventions found were often on side streets and had resulted in no major congestion or road safety problems. The police then argued, on that basis, that the findings did not support the case for change outside London.

We do not dispute that many of the contraventions which were found in the Sheffield and Rotherham surveys did not result in major congestion or road safety problems. What we do not accept is that that undermines the case for change. It is indisputable that the law is not being enforced at present.

It is important to understand that the police view of the objective of parking enforcement has to be seen in somewhat narrow terms; namely, in relation to maintaining the free flow of traffic. That is what the police seek to achieve. However, parking is a very much more important issue than that. It is an important transport policy tool. The availability of parking space can have an important influence on a person's decision whether to travel by car or by public transport. The availability of additional free space and unenforced parking restrictions on yellow lines can seriously undermine broader transport policies which are designed to encourage the greater use of public transport.

Yellow lines are introduced for a range of reasons other than maintaining the free flow of traffic on main routes. Local traffic management and environmental considerations can be important. These are local authority rather than police objectives, but the responsibility for allocating enforcement resources lies with the police. Manchester City Council, supported by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, has become convinced that the argument I am putting forward is the right one. It is supported by Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council. It is supported, too, by many other local authorities—Wolverhampton, Strathclyde Regional Council and so on; I do not propose to list them all. Equally, the Automobile Association supports these representations. Therefore, given the evidence of problems outside London—the Minister must be aware of those problems—there is growing support for change. Increasing importance is given to parking issues in the context of broader transport policies and related problems.

I hope that the Government will not simply push the door a little more ajar today but will come forward as clearly as they have in relation to the matter previously raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and welcome this idea. Incidentally, I very much welcome what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in relation to an earlier debate. I beg to move.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I think that my noble friend the Minister has a case to answer. It is a fact that there are many areas outside London that have very serious parking problems. I shall not waste the time of the Committee by discussing whether in some cases they are as bad as in central London, though personally I believe that to be so. If my noble friend wants evidence of that, I suggest that one weekend he takes his own car and tries to park in Newbury. He will find that at least as difficult as anywhere in central London. I suspect there are other towns and cities in this country where that is so.

I thought the noble Lord opposite made a very good point in regard to the problems involved in legislation. If we do not put at least an enabling clause into this Bill then, as I understand it, before we can extend these parking regulations to places outside London we shall need further legislation. I do not need to tell my noble friend, because he knows only too well, how difficult it is for a departmental Minister to get time for legislation. As one who was at one time responsible for a number of road traffic Bills, I could tell the Committee about some of the problems that I had on that very point and the harsh language that I had to use to certain of my colleagues in order to secure the opportunity.

It seems to me that it would be reasonable at least to include an enabling clause so as to enable provincial towns and cities to be looked at on their merits by his right honourable friend. For that reason I like the general approach of this amendment, though I should find difficulty in supporting it because I very much dislike subsection (7) which seems to be quite wrong and unduly restrictive.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

Before my noble friend the Minister replies, I should like to express my support for the view put forward by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We are all conscious of the difficulties experienced in the provinces when moving in urban towns where traffic problems are considerable and where parking problems are horrendous.

As my noble friend said, the proposed new clause gives the Secretary of State an enabling power to make the extension by means of making an order, so far as I understand, under subsection (2). That seems to me to be just what is required. If my noble friend the Minister were to agree to this, or to something like it, it would put a future Secretary of State in the position where he could take action when he was satisfied that a town had a serious enough problem.

The reply received from the police that the traffic flow is not impeded is not adequate. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a good point in that respect. The position about parking governs a whole range of factors, especially whether the driver of a motor car uses his car. Indeed, if he cannot park it he will probably use public transport. The problem is acute enough now in many towns to be worthy of consideration. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be prepared to look again at the proposal with a view perhaps to putting it in the Bill.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Before the Minister replies, I did not understand the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to the "subsection (7)" which he dislikes. I am afraid I have to point out to him that there is not a subsection (7) in the proposed new clause.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

If that is what the noble Lord says, then that must be so. I read that subsection as saying: Nothing in this section shall be taken as conferring power on a local authority to contract out". Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can clarify the position.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I believe that my noble friend is referring to the previous amendment, rather than the one presently under discussion.

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his introduction and explanation of the amendment. The Government appreciate that the London parking provisions in Part II of the Bill have attracted considerable interest beyond London, and that there have been calls for their extension to other areas. That is a measure of the soundness and popularity of the proposals; and I find that most gratifying.

The Government have been listening to these calls, and are mindful of the contribution that sensible parking policies can make to reducing traffic congestion, particularly in urban areas. We do not believe that it would be right to have an automatic application of Part II to the whole of the county. But we see some attractions in the provision of general enabling powers of a kind similar to those proposed in this amendment. We are therefore urgently considering the legal and policy issues which would be involved with such an extension of powers. I envisage that this consideration will be completed shortly, and I expect to be able to make a statement at Report stage. I am mindful of the points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—and by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—regarding legislation.

In the light of what I have said, and on the understanding that this Chamber will be able to return to the issues for further consideration at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I thank the Minister for that most positive response. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, notwithstanding his reference to the non-existing subsection, for the remarks he made.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

In that connection, I should point out that the diagnosis of my noble friend the Minister was exactly right; I was indeed glancing at the previous amendment. I thought that the subsection in question was also included in this amendment. I apologise accordingly.

Lord Clinton-Davis

As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows, I am always happy to accept, and at least to consider carefully, any criticisms from him. However, I am glad that I do not have to consider that one.

I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for his support. We look forward to returning to the matter and considering what the Government have to say and, preferably, what they table on the Marshalled List on Report. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41 [Variable speed limits]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 56: Page 39, line 36, leave out ("In").

The noble Lord said: With leave of the Committee, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 to 60, 62 to 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 162, 172, 173 and 176. These amendments are largely of a technical nature. They are designed to improve Clause 41 which provides for variable speed limits to be imposed by highway authorities in certain circumstances.

They are designed to put beyond doubt the power to impose variable speed limits on motorways and to enable the Secretary of State to require the ancillary equipment associated with speed limit and other traffic signs to be of an approved type. That will enable the department to set standards of accuracy and reliability for those devices. In order to assist the development of new and improved speed limit signs, there is provision for the use of non-prescribed speed limit traffic signs. I can assure Members of the Committee that those signs will usually be variations of existing signs, which the department must be able to test in the field before approving them for wider use.

The amendments also deal with a number of consequential changes, and are designed to clarify that certain references in the existing legislation to speed limits are to be treated as references to fixed speed limits, not to variable speed limits. I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to support these essential amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I welcome these government amendments. There should be flexibility for future action in this respect. The Government are arming themselves with that possibility. However, can the Minister give us some indication whether he envisages the provision of further regulations dealing with issues other than those listed in the clause and, if so, what they might be?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am not sure that I can deal with that question. There will be regulations to deal with those matters which are listed in the clause. That is what the clause says. I shall have to look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 60: Page 39, line 37, after second ("roads)") insert ("shall be amended as follows. (2)"). Page 40, line 15, at end insert ("in particular"). Page 40, line 16, leave out from ("may") to ("an") in line 17 and insert ("have effect by virtue of"). Page 40, line 21, at end insert: ("(3) In subsection (3) for the words "under subsection (1)" there shall be substituted the words "made by virtue of subsection (1) (a)". (4) At the end there shall be added— (6) Any reference in a local Act to roads subject to a speed limit shill, unless the contrary intention appears, be treated as not including a reference to roads subject to a speed limit imposed only by virtue of subsection (1) (b) or (c) above."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 61: Page 40, line 21, at end insert: ("() In Schedule 6 to that Act (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes) in item 1 there shall be inserted after ("passenger") the words ("excluding public passenger vehicles") and there shall be inserted

1A

A public passenger vehicle

60 60 50")

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Its purpose is essentially to ascertain the Government's current views on the proposals dealing with speed limits for coaches. I should at this point declare an interest in the matter. When I was responsible for transport policy in the Commission, I put forward a proposal in this regard with which the amend rent now before the Committee is essentially in line. That proposal does not seem to have made very much headway.

My understanding is that the Government take the view—although I hope that I am wrong—that the question of speed limits is not a matter for Community competence. I have especially singled out coaches because, to some extent at least, this country seems to be out of line with the practice in most other member states where there is a limit of 60 mph on motorways. I am especially worried with that aspect. The proposal was initially put forward in order to achieve a harmonised speed limit.

If one is talking about a wider principle in this respect, one of the main difficulties with traffic safety within the Community is that there are so many variations; that is, not simply in relation to speed limits but also in relation to a whole host of other matters. Some people complain that we drive on the left-hand side of the road while others drive on the right. Indeed, I have always found that one of the most iniquitous things was having to take account of traffic coming from your right into a road and giving it precedence. For a driver from this country, that is difficult. It obtains in France and Belgium except on main roads. Much more important, however, is the need for coaches which travel in this country and then frequently on to the Continent to have some understanding that there is a single speed limit.

My second argument is that there have been disquieting circumstances relating to a number of coach accidents, details of which I do not propose to rehearse. Virtually throughout the year, but most especially during the summer, one hears of coaches travelling on motorways and elsewhere at speeds in excess of 70 mph. We should not ignore the practice of continental Europe. I do not propose to press the matter today, but I want to probe the Government as to their intentions: first, in regard to the proposal that has emanated from the Commission; and, secondly, in relation to the practice which should be deployed in this country.

If the Minister is worried about the economics of the matter, I suggest that travelling safely and at lower speeds is much more important than reaching one's destination a quarter of an hour or half an hour later, or whatever it may be. I beg to move.

5 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

It was recently announced in another place that the Government are reassessing all vehicle speed limits. That would of course include those applying to buses and coaches. It would therefore be wrong to seek to reduce the motorway speed limit on buses and coaches in advance of that assessment. As the noble Lord will be aware, coaches are required to be fitted with speed limiters to ensure that they cannot be driven at more than 70 mph. We shall take full account of the concerns that the noble Lord expressed when considering that issue.

The Commission's proposals to harmonise PSV and HGV speed limits have not been taken forward. The Government believe it right that individual member states should determine the limits. There are significant variations in the standard of road construction throughout Europe and differences in road user behaviour, traffic law and enforcement policies.

The amendment is unnecessary should we decide to make a change, because Section 86 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 gives the Secretary of State power to amend vehicle speed limits by regulation. We could make a change without needing to accept the amendment.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Will my noble friend amplify what he said about speed limiters in coaches. From my observation, I can only say that they cannot be effective. I have seen coaches travelling at more than 70 mph, especially on the M.3 and M.4. If my noble friend relies on speed limiters as an effective method of controlling speeds, I suggest that he has another look at them.

Baroness Phillips

Perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord said. Some coach companies have timetables which would preclude the coach from travelling at anything except beyond the proper speed limit. It is worth looking at the timing of coaches going from London to Yorkshire. It would be impossible if they were to travel at the speeds at which they should be travelling. That accords with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is a good one. Many coaches travel across Europe and so there is some value in having uniformity. A coach may start from here and then go across France into Italy, Spain or wherever. For many years I have driven to Italy through France. I have been accustomed to high speeds, especially in Italy from the more adventurous Italian drivers—that is pretty well all of them. They will pass on the wrong side at the drop of a hat. My impression is that over the years driving on our motorways has become faster and faster. It is common now when driving along, as I normally do, at between 70 mph and 80 mph to be passed again and again. There is a tendency with the high performance motor cars, which are now common at not very high prices, for drivers to go faster and faster. It is not only coaches that do so.

If my noble friend is considering this matter, he should study the only real cure, which is traffic police on the motorways. It is an expensive solution, but it is the only one. Those of us who have driven in the United States have experience of freeways which may have six lanes on either side. If the speed limit is 65 mph—or whatever it may be—everyone keeps to it. If a driver weaves, the traffic police have him. There are traffic police all over the place. They result in drivers obeying speed limits and the traffic rules and driving more safely than we do.

We have always resisted such a proposal, because it is expensive. It is not a matter of having just one or two traffic police. Quite a number are needed. If my noble friend is studying the problem of speed limits for coaches, they will not be enforced unless we have traffic police on the motorways. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, coaches travel at 75 mph to 80 mph now. They will not keep to 60 mph, 70 mph or anything else unless they are made to. I ask my noble friend to include in the review the major point relating to traffic police, what they cost, and whether we could put the proposal into action.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I agree with the first part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, but unhappily I do not agree with what he said about traffic police. He mentioned the position in the United States. The United States has 44,000 law enforcement agencies of one type or another. England and Wales have 43 police forces. I am well aware that there are forces such as the California Highway Patrol which are extremely efficient. One of the reasons for the existence of those agencies is the Balkanisation of the police forces in California and elsewhere.

One of the problems involved in having a separate traffic police force, the idea of which has been advanced by many people over a number of years, is that it would make sense if it dealt only with traffic offences, but that is not the position. A substantial police effort on motorways is involved in dealing with travelling criminals. One has only to consider what the problem would be if one had more than one police force in an area, with one responsible for traffic and another for general crime. The idea sounds attractive, but on greater reflection I hope that the Committee will not be attracted by it.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

We have had an interesting debate. On speed limiters, since 1st April 1991 all coaches first used from 1st April 1974 which are capable of 70 mph must have speed limiters. I note what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said about the effectiveness of speed limiters. I draw his attention to Amendments Nos. 77 and 80 which relate to the checking of the calibration of speed limiters which should be a help. Speed limiters have only just been introduced. I hope that we will see the benefit of speed limiters over a period of time. If the amendments are agreed, that will help.

I was horrified to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, had to say about speed limits requiring to be broken in order to meet timetables. That is extremely worrying. However, she should note that Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act makes it an offence to time a journey according to the timetable necessitating breaking a speed limit. So it is already an offence and if the noble Baroness can provide any evidence to me of such breaches, I shall be happy to take them up.

My noble friend Lord Nugent called first for a review of all vehicle speed limits. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it is not just the coaches. Obviously the Government's decision to re-assess vehicle speed limits has been reinforced by the debate in the Committee this afternoon. I do not know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was necessarily right when he said that my noble friend Lord Nugent advocated separate traffic police. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the possibility of separate traffic police, but I believe that my noble friend was calling for more enforcement of the regulations by the ordinary motorway police. If I am wrong, obviously my noble friend will put me right.

I also draw the Committee's attention to provisions in the Bill for the use of technology which will help the situation.

Lord Clinton-Davis>

I agree with the Minister that the short debate has been interesting, and we are encouraged by the Minister's response. He will study what has been said by Members on both sides of the Committee. We are not simply concerned with speed limits but with their enforcement. There seems to be a gaping hole here at present; the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is right, as is my noble friend Lady Phillips. I am sure that the Minister will take that to heart.

My experience from driving on motorways during the past months is not encouraging as regards this experiment or the required use of speed limiters. Perhaps they are flexible speed limiters, and that worries me. Of course, time will tell and I am sure that the Minister will keep close surveillance on the matter through his officials.

I an also encouraged by what he said about the re-assessment of speed limits that his department is carrying out. Can he tell the Committee how far that assessment or re-assessment has gone and when conclusions are likely to be reached? Is there any possibility that it might be in time for the matter to be dealt with either here or in another place during the passage of the Bill?

I do not propose to become too involved in whether we have separate traffic police on the motorways. I was intrigued by the phrase about the Balkanised state of law enforcement in California, no doubt with Serbo-Croats, Croats and other people. I should like to hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about that, but perhaps not on this occasion as we still have many amendments to consider.

The only other matter to which I advert is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I am disappointed by the Minister's comments on the attitude the Government take about the proposal from the Commission. It is correct that it is bogged down at the moment. I should have liked him not to use the trite argument about variation of road user behaviour and variations in enforcement. That applies to the whole gamut of matters affecting the creation of the single market. There are always different patterns of behaviour on the part of consumers, industrialists and everyone else in the Community. However, we have decided, as a Community, to embark upon the idea of 1992.

No doubt it would be appropriate at this stage to say how much not simply this House but Europe owes to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for the strenuous work that he carried out on that issue. However, that is a stale argument. For people who travel abroad in increasing numbers, including coach drivers, carrying precious loads of people, I should have thought that we would need to re-think the subject and the whole attitude of a European or Community policy in relation to speed limits. That is not wholly germane to the Bill. I am encouraged in part, at least, by what the Minister said.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, he asked me specifically whether I expected the results of the review to be with us before we concluded consideration of the Bill. The answer is that it is unlikely. However, as I said in my reply to him, we do not require an amendment to the Bill to alter the speed limits. That can be brought about under regulations made under Section 86 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Lord Clinton-Davis

The Minister is quite correct, I overlooked that. Having regard to all the arguments we have heard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 65: Page 71, line 4, at end insert:

("The Highways Act 1980 (c. 66)

. In section 42 of the Highways Act 1980 (power of district councils to maintain certain highways) in subsection (2) (c) (ii) for the words "under section 84 of that Act imposing a special limit" there shall be substituted the words "made by virtue of section 84(1) (a) of that Act imposing a speed limit".

. In each of sections 90A(1) and 90B(1) of that Act (construction of road humps) at the beginning of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "(whether or not the highway is subject to such a limit)".

. In section 90F(2) of that Act (interpretation) for the definition of "statutory" there shall be substituted— statutory speed limit" means a speed limit having effect by virtue of an enactment other than section 84(1) (b) or (c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (temporary and variable speed limits)."").

Page 73, line 11, leave out from ("(1) (b)") to end of line 12 and insert (", as substituted by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, for the words "83(2) or 84" there shall be substituted the words "or 83(2) or by virtue of section 84(1) (a)".").

Page 73, line 12, at end insert: (". In section 17(2) of that Act (traffic regulation on special roads) at the end there shall be added— (d) include provisions having effect in such places, at such times, in such manner or in such circumstances as may for the time being be indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the regulations." ").

Page 73, line 12, at end insert: (". In section 44 of that Act (control of off-street parking outside Greater London) in subsection (5) for the words "under section 84" there shall be substituted the words "made by virtue of section 84(1) (a)".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 62 with Amendment No. 56, as I did with Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 66: Page 73, line 13, leave out paragraph 22.

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 3 was included in the Bill to overcome a perceived difficulty with Section 46(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 that local authorities outside London need to make a separate order to specify parking charges at designated parking places. However, Section 49(6) of the 1984 Act provides that these charges may be specified in the same order as designates the parking places. Paragraph 22 is therefore unnecessary and should be removed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68: Page 73, line 25, at end insert: (". In section 65 of that Act (powers and duties of highway authorities as to placing of traffic signs) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted— (1A) The power to give general directions under subsection (1) above includes power to require equipment used in connection with traffic signs to be of a type approved in accordance with the directions."").

Page 73, line 25, at end insert: (". In section 85 of that Act (traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions) in subsections (I) and (2) (a) the words "the prescribed" shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 with Amendment No. 56. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 69: Page 73, line 42, at end insert: (". At the end of section 99 of that Act (removal of vehicles illegally parked) there shall be inserted— (6) For the purposes of this section, the suspension under section 13A or 49 of this Act of the use of a parking place is a restriction imposed under this Act. . At the end of section 104 of that Act (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked) there shall be inserted— (12A) For the purposes of this section, the suspension under section 13A or 49 of this Act of the use of a parking place is a restriction imposed under this Act."").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 69 and, with the leave of the Committee, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 as well as Amendment No. 175. The purpose of these amendments is to enable the police to remove or wheelclamp vehicles which have been left in designated parking places, such as meter bays and residents' bays, and which the police have suspended from use. New powers are necessary because of provisions in the Bill which enable the police to suspend these parking places temporarily in extraordinary circumstances, and because of other provisions which decriminalise the controls over these parking places in London.

The power of the police to undertake wheelclamping and removal action depends on the vehicles being parked in contravention of a restriction. Amendment No. 69 to Schedule 3 provides the necessary restrictions. Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 to Schedule 6 broaden the powers of the police so that they can temporarily suspend parking places in London which have been designated on an experimental basis. Amendment No. 175 to Schedule 7 enables the police to undertake wheelclamping action in all cases where they have temporarily suspended parking places under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The amendments will enable the police to continue with their present practice with regard to suspended parking places and will provide a valuable extension to cover action in extraordinary circumstances, such as disruptions to public transport services. They will therefore help the police to meet their existing responsibilities, for example those for handling emergencies and ceremonial occasions, and help them further to keep traffic moving. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 70: Page 73, line 42, at end insert: (". In section 103 of that Act (supplementary provision as to removal of vehicles), for subsection (3) there shall be substituted— (3) Regulations made under sections 99 to 102 of this Act may make different provision for different cases or classes of case or in respect of different areas. . In section 104 of that Act (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked), in subsection (12) there shall be added at the end "or classes of case or in respect of different areas".").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 70, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 174. These are technical amendments. They are made in consequence of the provisions of Part II of the Bill which provide for the introduction of a new, decriminalised system of local authority parking controls in London. Amendment No. 70 to Schedule 3 amends Section 103(3) and 104(12) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so that regulations made by the Secretary of State covering action by the police to wheelclamp, remove and store vehicles which are parked illegally or to remove and store vehicles which are parked obstructively or dangerously or which are abandoned or broken down may make different provision for different cases or classes of case or in respect of different areas. This will enable the Secretary of State to change the present regulations, for example to distinguish between breaches of designated or permitted parking place orders as opposed to other contraventions and to provide that the police have only limited powers in respect of removals from designated parking areas.

Amendment No. 175 to Schedule 7 repeals Section 99(2) (c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The section is duplicated by the new Section 103(3) of the Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72: Page 73, line 46, after ("paragraph") insert ("(b) or"). Page 73, line 47, at end insert:

("The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 54)

.—(1) In section 36 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (construction of road humps by roads authority) at the beginning of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "(whether or not the road is subject to such a limit)".

(2) In section 40 of that Act (interpretation of sections 36 to 39) at the end of the definition of "statutory" there shall be added the words "other than section 84(1) (b) or (c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (temporary and variable speed limits)".").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 73: Page 74, line 41, leave out ("Section") and insert ("In section").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 73, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76 and 178. I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for tabling an amendment to Schedule 3 which draws attention to the provisions in the Bill relating to cycle races on footpaths and bridleways. I am aware that there has been criticism of these provisions and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing this to our attention. In clarifying the meaning of public way in this section, we took new powers to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations for the authorisation of cycle racing on footpaths and bridleways. I am aware of the concern of the Byways and Bridleways Trust and other organisations about the possible conflict which that change might create between cycle racing and the condition which is attached to the use of cycles on bridleways by the Countryside Act 1968. Section 30(1) of that Act provides a right of way for cyclists on bridleways on condition that they must give way to pedestrians and horse riders. It is difficult to envisage a cycle race taking place under that condition.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, would introduce a prohibition on cycle racing on footpaths but it would still allow authorised cycle racing on bridleways. I see that the noble Baroness is not in her place. Perhaps she does not intend to move her amendments. As I have already indicated, that might give rise to conflict with the requirements for cyclists to give way to pedestrians and horse riders contained in the Countryside Act 1968. Nor do I believe that a specific prohibition of cycle racing on footpaths is workable. There is no general offence of cycle racing on a footpath, but neither is there any right of way for cyclists. Local authorities can introduce local prohibitions creating offences using their traffic regulation or by-law powers where there is a particular problem.

We propose therefore to return to the existing position in Section 31 which prohibits cycle racing on bridleways outright, with no possibility of authorisation; neither would it be possible to authorise cycle racing on footpaths. I hope the Committee will consider these amendments sensible. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 74, I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 75. I now call Amendment No. 74.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 74: Page 74, line 41, leave out from ("ways)") to ("For") in line 1 on page 75.

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 75 not moved].

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 76: Page 75, line 3, at end insert ("but does not include a footpath").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 73. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 77: Page 75, line 3, at end insert: (".—(1) Section 41 of that Act (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2) at the end of paragraph (e) there shall be added the words "(by means of the fixing of plates or otherwise) and the circumstances in which they are to be marked,".

(3) In subsection (2) after paragraph (j) there shall be inserted— (jj) speed limiters,".

(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted— (4A) Regulations under this section with respect to speed limiters may include provision—

1. (a) as to the checking and sealing of speed limiters by persons authorised in accordance with the regulations and the making of charges by them,
2. (b) imposing or providing for the imposition of conditions to be complied with by authorised persons,
3. (c) as to the withdrawal of authorisations." ").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 179. In the interests of road safety and fuel efficiency we already require coaches to be fitted with speed limiters, and we have recently proposed that new heavy goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes gross weight should be fitted with limiters. We have already debated the issue of speed limiters on coaches.

The reason for introducing this amendment is to enable us to exercise control over the way that speed limiters are calibrated. If they are to fulfil their function of restricting the speed of vehicles to the motorway speed limits or to any lower speed selected by the vehicle operator they must be properly installed and calibrated to the characteristics of the particular vehicle.

This is best achieved in a workshop specially equipped for the purpose. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to require the checking and sealing of speed limiters only by persons authorised by him. This means that only an authorised person would be able to seal the system against tampering and before doing this he would have to ensure that the speed limiter was properly connected and also that it had been correctly calibrated. It would enable the Secretary of State to impose conditions to be complied with by the people authorised to check speed limiters, to provide for charges and for the withdrawal of authorisations, for example if they failed to meet the necessary standards.

In addition, the amendment would make it an offence to forge a speed limiter seal or any plate containing particulars required to be marked by the Construction and Use Regulations; and it would also make it an offence to impersonate a person authorised to check and seal speed limiters. I commend these amendments to the Committee as a necessary means of ensuring that speed limiters function correctly in practice and to provide reasonable safeguards against tampering or other interference. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol

I must apologise to the Minister for missing his introduction. I am aware that his Amendment No. 73 pre-empts my Amendment No. 75. Therefore I shall not of course move Amendment No. 75.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I apologise to the noble Baroness. We are now discussing Amendment No. 77 which concerns speed limiters. I replied —I hope satisfactorily—to the amendment of the noble Baroness. She will be able to read that reply in the Official Report. I hope that what I have said about the government amendments will take care of the concerns of the noble Baroness.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My noble friend mentioned the installation of speed limiters in heavy goods vehicles. Will he indicate to the Committee what speed is to be permitted for heavy goods vehicles?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

It is at this stage a proposal to introduce speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes gross weight. The present speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on motorways is 60 miles per hour.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Does my noble friend mean that that will be the limit imposed by the speed limiters, or will some lower figure be added?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Provided no change is made in the speed limit by the review that I have referred to, that would have to be the limit at which the limiters were set. Obviously we could not set the limit lower than the speed limit which is allowed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 78:

Page 75, line 3, at end insert: (". In section 33(1) of that Act (control of use of footpaths and bridleways for motor vehicle trials) for the words "under this section by the local authority" there shall be substituted—

1. "(a) by or under regulations made under section 13 above; and
2. (b) by the local authority under this section." ").

The noble Baroness said: This is a rather more complicated amendment. I hope that the Minister can put me right on the matter. The issue was raised by the Ramblers' Association, which feels that there is an anomaly between Sections 12, 13 and 33 of the Road Traffic Act. I have spent a considerable amount of time on the subject and it seems to me that an anomaly exists. Therefore I am afraid that I must introduce the amendment at some length.

Section 12 of the Act makes it an offence to promote or take part in a race or trial of speed on any public highway, including footpaths and bridleways. Section 13 allows the Secretary of State, through regulations, to authorise the holding of competitions or trials on highways but not racing or trials of speed. Section 33 adds to the requirements of Section 13 by requiring a trial between motor vehicles which makes use of a footpath or bridleway to be subject to authorisation by the local authority. In turn, the authority must be satisfied that the owners and occupiers of the land have given their consent.

However, subsection (4) of Section 33 provides that the holding of a trial authorised under the section is not affected by any statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths and bridleways. Some such provision is clearly needed in order to overcome the conflict which would otherwise arise with Section 34 of the Act which makes it an offence to drive on a footpath or bridleway.

Some local authorities have taken the view that subsection (4) enables them to authorise a race or trial of speed which would be illegal under Section 12 and have claimed that the words "trial of any description" in Section 33(1) add weight to that argument. It is hard to believe that Parliament could have had the intention of banning races or trials of speed on roads, no doubt on grounds of safety, but permitting them on footpaths and bridleways.

A local authority's power to authorise events on footpaths and bridleways should be limited to those events which the Secretary of State is prepared to authorise under the regulations made under Section 13. That would be the effect of the amendment. Its purpose is to remove the anomaly. However, it would not prevent the reasonable, occasional use of footpaths and bridleways by motor vehicle trials which are not races or trials of speed. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am aware of the anxieties which lie behind the noble Baroness's amendment on trials between motor vehicles. I should, however, point out to the Committee that as the law stands at present local authorities have the power to authorise a "trial of any description" between motor vehicles on footpaths and on bridleways under Section 33 of the Road Traffic Act. It is important to note, however, that they cannot do so unless they are satisfied that the owner and the occupier of the land over which the footpath or bridleway runs have given their consent in writing. They can impose such conditions as they think fit.

When that section was introduced in the Road Traffic Act 1956 it was clear that trials authorised in this way could include trials of speed which, because of Section 33(4), would not be caught by the offence of motor racing on a highway (under what is now Section12 of the Road Traffic Act). When Section 13 (which provides for the regulation of motoring events on public ways) was originally enacted in 1962 it was not considered necessary for such trials to be authorised under that section. I do not believe that it would be right to change the arrangements now. Local authorities already have powers to impose such conditions as they see fit. Authorisation under Section 13 would merely add another bureaucratic hurdle without any safety or other benefits.

I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Nicol

As I said in introducing the amendment, there is a rather complicated interaction between the various sections of the Act. I should like to study carefully the Minister's answer to see whether it meets all the points that I raised. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment Nos. 79 and 80:

Page 79, line 8, at end insert: ("(1A) After paragraph (c) there shall be inserted— (cc) any seal required by regulations made under section 41 of this Act with respect to speed limiters,". (1B) In paragraph (d) for the words from the beginning to "Part II of this Act)" there shall be substituted the words "any plate containing particulars required to be marked on a vehicle by regulations under section 41 of this Act".").

Page 79, line 25 at end insert: (".In section 177 of that Act (impersonation of, or of person employed by, authorised examiner) after the words "a person authorised" there shall be inserted the words "in accordance with regulations made under section 41 of this Act with respect to the checking and sealing of speed limiters or a person authorised".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 with Amendment No. 77. With the leave of the Committee I shall move the amendments together. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 81: Page 80, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert: (". In section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (requirement of warning etc of prosecution of certain offences), in subsection (1) for the words "where a person" to "convicted unless" there shall be substituted the words "a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless". . For subsections (4) to (6) of section 2 of that Act (requirement of warning of prosecution: supplementary) there shall be substituted— (4) Failure to comply with the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act in relation to an offence is not a bar to the conviction of a person of that offence by virtue of the provisions of—

1. (a) section 24 of this Act, or
2. (b) any of the enactments mentioned in section 24(6);

but a person is not to be convicted of an offence by virtue of any of those provisions if section 1 applies to the offence with which he was charged and the requirement of section 1(1) was not satisfied in relation to the offence charged."").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Clause 23 of the Bill provides for an extended system of alternative verdicts under which offenders charged with certain Road Traffic Act offences may be convicted by the court of certain lesser offences where the more serious offence charged is not proved. The amendment adjusts those provisions in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which deal with notices of intended prosecution to take account of alternative verdicts. The effect is that, if an offender is charged with an offence for which a notice of intended prosecution is not required, he may nevertheless be convicted of a lesser offence for which such a notice would have been required. If, however, a notice is required for the offence charged, that notice must be properly issued if the offender is to be convicted either of that offence or of an alternative lesser offence.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 agreed to.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 82: After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:

("Power to apply enactments to tramcars and trolley vehicles

.—(1) In this section— operated under statutory powers" means, in relation to tramcars or trolley vehicles, that their use is authorised or regulated by special Act of Parliament or by an order having the force of an Act, road" means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes, tramcar" includes any carriage used on any road by virtue of an order under the Light Railways Act 1896, and trolley vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads without rails and moved by power transmitted to it from some external source.

(2) References in this section to a class of vehicles are to be interpreted as references to a class defined or described by reference to any characteristics of the vehicles or to any other circumstances whatsoever.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and any orders or regulations made under any of those provisions which would not otherwise apply to tramcars or trolley vehicles operated under statutory powers shall apply to all tramcars or trolley vehicles whether or not operated under statutory powers or to such tramcars or trolley vehicles of a specified class subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

(4) Different regulations may be made under subsection (3) above as respects different classes of vehicles or as respects the same class of vehicles in different circumstances.

(5) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act which authorises or regulates the use of tramcars or trolley vehicles on a road is inconsistent with any regulations made under subsection (3) above, he may by order repeal, amend or adapt that special Act or order to such extent, or in such manner, as he considers appropriate.

(6) Before making any orders or regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

(7) Any power conferred by this section upon the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument by which that power is exercised shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(8) No provision of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and no order or regulation made under any such provision which is applied by regulations made under subsection (3) above shall have effect as so applied until those regulations are in force.").

The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment is to introduce a new clause designed to bring trams and trolleybuses when running in the street within the scope of the road traffic legislation.

Members of the Committee may recall that at Second Reading I mentioned that there are some alarming gaps in current legislation in respect of such vehicles. With the Greater Manchester Metrolink System well under construction there is an urgent need to remedy the situation before, happily, trams start running once again on the streets of Manchester and, I hope, elsewhere later. For those Members of the Committee who know the area, it will provide a light rail system from Bury in the north to Altrincham in the south, with on-street running in the heart of Manchester. The Bill before us today presents an opportunity to introduce the necessary legislation.

At present trams and trolleybuses are exempt from a great many of the provisions relating to road traffic. Most of the exemptions date back many years and in some cases they originated in the Road Traffic Act 1930. Over the years legislation has been amended and anomalies have arisen. The exemptions have not been looked at in any detail in recent times. Indeed, in the absence of trams and trolleybuses there was no need to do so. However, with the likelihood of more and more such transport systems appearing on the streets of Britain, such as South Yorkshire's Supertram, West Yorkshire's trolleybus proposals for Bradford, the West Midlands Light Rail System, as well as systems proposed for Bristol and Croydon and other such schemes which are currently in embryo, this would seem to be the time to address the issue of those exemptions in the light of modern traffic conditions.

The list of exemptions from legislation is a long one and applies to a number of Acts, in particular the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. In the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 alone there are some 68 provisions from which trams or trolleybuses are exempt in one way or another. By way of example, they include provisions relating to driving recklessly, driving without due care and attention and driving when unfit through drink or drugs.

A particularly good example of an exemption which is no longer appropriate is that which exempts trams or trolleybuses from provisions which require compulsory insurance or security against third party risks. The exemption dates back to the Road Traffic Act 1930. At that time most tram and trolleybus undertakings were run by public authorities which could carry their own insurance risks. Today, however, such systems will, in the main, be run by private operators and the rationale behind that particular exemption has now disappeared.

The Committee will understand the complexities that will arise if it were sought to make amendments in respect of each or every section or subsection of legislation where such exemptions may be found. For that reason my proposed amendment seeks instead to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to provide that those current provisions which would not otherwise apply to trams or trolleybuses shall in fact apply. The amendment further provides that the Secretary of State has power to amend, repeal or adapt any special Act of Parliament or any order having the force of an Act which is inconsistent with any such regulations. That is not to say that there will be no exemptions in future for trams or trolleybuses.

Indeed it is well recognised that some exemptions must continue. The Department of Transport has consulted widely on this issue and a large degree of consensus has already been reached as to which provisions should apply and which exemptions should continue. If the amendment is passed, the power which will be given to the Secretary of State has the virtue of flexibility and should ensure that the anomalies in road traffic legislation which have arisen over the past 50 years should no longer occur. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

On behalf of the Opposition I have great pleasure in supporting this amendment. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing it forward. As he said, there has been considerable interest in light transit and light rail systems. It is vital that they should come within road traffic regulations. That is what the amendment seeks to do.

I understand that the first line of the Manchester Metro is likely in the autumn. That shows the urgency of the matter if that line is to function in a few months' time. We welcome the fact that there is flexibility in the amendment in the order-making power that is provided in this new clause.

Subsection (6) of the new clause states: Before making any orders or regulations… the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit". We are always somewhat concerned when we see the phrase "as he thinks fit". I am certain that the Minister will accept the amendment or the general principle or say that he himself will bring forward an amendment on these lines, but I wonder whether he will indicate the type of organisations that the Government will consult before bringing forward such regulations.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I welcome my noble friend's interest in the application of road traffic law to tramcars and trolley vehicles. As he said, at present road traffic law applies in principle to trams and trolley vehicles but there are a number of exceptions. Those have grown up over the years and are neither consistent nor in all respects sensible; for example, trams and trolleybuses are not subject to speed limits. With the imminent introduction of the modern systems to which my noble friend referred it is important to take action to regularise the legislative provision.

As my noble friend is no doubt aware, last summer the department consulted on the application of various road traffic provisions to light rail and trolleybuses. The outcome of that consultation indicated that such measures would command widespread support in principle. I do not have a list of those with whom the department consulted to give the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at this stage, but I shall be happy to write to him with that list.

Lord Underhill

I was not so much asking about those with whom the consultation had been held. With the flexible approach in this amendment, order-making powers will be given to the Secretary of State. We welcome that. Can the department or the Minister give an indication of the type of organisations that will be approached in making those orders? That will be very important even though we welcome the flexibility that they provide.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I take the point made by the noble Lord. I expect that they will be the same organisations as were consulted the last time around. But I shall certainly write to the noble Lord with confirmation or otherwise about that.

This new clause seeks to provide the powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce the necessary changes. As my noble friend will understand, I have been advised that the drafting is not perfect and we cannot accept the amendment in its present form. However, I am pleased to say that I should like to consider it further with a view to returning to the matter at a later stage.

Lord Tordoff

Before the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, replies—I am sure that he will withdraw the amendment—I hope that the Government will come back quickly on this matter. As both noble Lords said, there is considerable urgency. I was in Manchester about a fortnight ago. Track is being laid as fast as possible. There is the slightly weird sight of people digging into Market Street to put down new track and unearthing the old track that has been there for probably 100 years. It is nice to see the full cycle of trams before one's very eyes. The idea of Manchester tram drivers rushing down Market Street while under the influence of drugs or drink without any check on them at all seems to be quite weird. I hope that the Government will move quickly on this matter.

Lord Teviot

I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but before doing so I thank my noble friend for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his support. I hope that the phrase "as he thinks fit" will be dealt with in the Government's amendment at a subsequent stage. A number of amendments have been introduced over the years and this one is very nearly right. All amendments have to be tidied up in one way or another. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Clause 44 [Designation of priority routes]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 82A: Page 40, line 31, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert: ("(1) A new council for Greater London ("the London Traffic Authority") shall be created for the purposes of transport planning and traffic management. (2) The London Traffic Authority").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss also Amendments Nos. 82B, 82C, 85A, 88A, 89A, 89C, 89D and 89E. Amendments Nos. 85A to 89A are consequential.

It is strange that London should be virtually the only city in Europe—indeed the only city in Europe —in which there is no strategic planning authority and where the major role over detailed local issues is discharged by central government. As a consequence of this Bill the powers of central government will be further extended so that they will be responsible for detailed parking regulations, the location of pedestrian crossings and cycle lanes on many roads in London. I suggest that that is faintly ludicrous.

The Government will probably argue that these roads are of some national status but one wonders whether that is the case when one looks at the situation in terms of traffic borne by those roads. In London as a whole no more than 5 per cent. of all traffic either starts or finishes its journey beyond the boundaries of Greater London. Barely one car in 1,000 thousand starts and finishes its journey outside Greater London. So there is a situation in which the vast bulk of traffic on the priority routes, which we are considering in the context of this amendment, will be local to London. We call for the operation of priority routes to be overseen by a new council for Greater London rather than by the Secretary of State.

Even on the roads which the Government have indicated will be priority routes, only about 15 per cent. of traffic will start or finish the journey outside Greater London, save on those stretches of road near the Greater London boundary where obviously the proportion will be higher. In those circumstances it is therefore extremely difficult for national government to take a truly balanced view of the local issues involved or to be fully accountable on such detailed local matters.

I turn to the proposal for a new council. We do not suggest that it is the reintroduction of the Greater London Council, although I am bound to say that the Government's attitude about the Greater London Council was coloured by one individual member of the council rather than by the application of any serious thought. But those were days of yore and one must hope that they will not be repeated by the present Government—of however short a duration that may be under the present leadership of Mr. Major. I hope that the Government will take a more sensible view on this proposal than they took about the Greater London Council.

The amendment does not propose the reinstallation of the GLC. We look for a more streamlined body that would have more clearly defined powers in strategic areas. The need for such a body is given added emphasis by the number of London-wide bodies which are already involved in planning and transport issues that are run by joint borough committees. Perhaps I may give the Committee a small list of them: the London Planning Advisory Committee; the London Boroughs Transport Committee; the London Committee on Concessionary Travel; the London Committee on Accessible Transport; the London Road Safety Committee; and the London Channel Tunnel Group. It is a very impressive list. I believe that it would be better to have an organisation with powers strictly defined on strategic areas of policy.

The new council could incorporate such bodies as the Traffic Control Systems Unit, the London Accident Analysis Unit and the new joint committee for parking enforcement which we shall discuss later.

There is an overwhelming case, which has been reiterated by Members of the Committee on both sides of the Chamber, to cure the obvious deficiency of there being no proper strategic planning unit for London. That needs to be achieved. This amendment is one way of doing so. I beg to move the amendment.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

It is intriguing to watch how the ghost of the Greater London Council still seems to haunt the Benches opposite. They still have an almost subconscious craving for the re-creation of that body or something like it. However, I believe that the Committee will wish to consider the amendment from a practical point of view. What good would it do? Whatever may be the system in some other cities, as the national capital London must be very much the concern of central government. Much of the nation's economy depends on the efficient operation of the City of London and the finance houses therein. It is the seat of government. It is the centre and headquarters of most of our major industries. It is upon the efficient working of London that much of the national well-being depends.

Therefore it seems to me logical that a department of central government, to wit the Department of Transport, should have responsibility for transport problems generally in London, whatever may be the acceptable case in other parts of the country. That also has a practical advantage. It means that Ministers in either your Lordships' House or in another place are directly answerable for what happens or does not happen in respect of certain operations in London. If responsibility were shunted off to some council, Ministers would go to their Box and say, "That is nothing to do with us. We have no authority in the matter"; whereas, as the position stands—and I hope will continue to stand —Ministers will have to answer for the proper operation in particular of the red routes which we shall discuss in a moment and which are obviously of the greatest importance for the operation of so many of the activities in London.

I hope that my noble friend will not be attracted by any sentimentality about the Greater London Council but will consider the position from a practical point of view. In any event, it would be necessary to retain in the Department of Transport and in central government the ultimate authority in a number of matters affecting transport in the capital city. It is inconceivable that central government should shed that. If certain matters are retained, the amendment simply involves putting in another layer of subordinate government which would have to be consulted. It would undoubtedly result in delay, in increased bureaucracy and in a slowing of decision.

I hope that my noble friend will be resolute and will say that he does not wish to set up such a body. I hope that he believes, as many of us do, that it would do no good and quite a bit of harm.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

Before the noble Lord sits down, he has referred to our sentimentality and our attachment to ghosts of the past. However, is he not in touch with current views in London? Is he not aware that there is a genuine desire for a return to an elected body to co-ordinate matters in the capital city? It is the only capital city of any size in the world which has no such body. The proposal is nothing to do with the past; it is what the present position requires.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I can only say that I have not observed any passionate desire for the creation of such a body. The noble Lord opposite may have contacts denied to me; it is possible that I have contacts denied to him. However, so far as I can recall, not a single person has spoken to me indicating a craving for the setting up of a Greater London authority. On the contrary, when that is suggested, most people shrug their shoulders in horror and remember what a mess the previous authority made of it.

Lord Strabolgi

One of the consequences of the abolition of the GLC is the void that it has left in the planning of London. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says, there is very little overall planning. For example, I cite coaches. The noble Lord knows—I have experience of it—of the coach problem in Victoria. That station has grown in recent years. There are 1,000 coaches going down residential streets every day particularly in the summer. Four authorities (if I may so call them) are involved: the coach station, the Westminster City Council; the Grosvenor Estate; and the department. I am a member of the local residents' association. I am on its committee. For some years now we have struggled to achieve some overall plan for this very important coach station. It is lunacy to bring coaches—I refer to long distance and not tourist coaches —from the North into the centre of London. There should be various coach stations around the perimeter with proper communications.

The problem is that there is very little overall planning or overall view. It seems to be left to market forces. The buck is passed around among the four constituents the whole time. We are sent from the Grosvenor Estate, which is always helpful, to the local authority, the Westminster City Council. We are then sent to the department, but get nowhere there. The issue is again a matter for local questions and nothing happens.

This is an enormous coach station in the middle of a busy part of London for which no one appears to be responsible. Furthermore, no one appears to have any idea what to do about its future. The proposal in the amendment may not be perfect and may result in bureaucracy. However, if the Department of Transport is to be responsible, let it take some responsibility, have an overall view of the situation and take action.

6 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

There appears to be a slight disagreement about the matter. The need for main traffic routes from the periphery to the centre of London is well established. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the majority of traffic in London is moving. However, there is a vital need for priority routes in order to keep the main flow of traffic moving, in particular during the morning and evening commuter periods. I believe that the life of London depends upon that. Members of the Committee have only to look at the movement of public transport in London. Sometimes during commuter periods the buses are slowed down to five or 10 miles an hour. For many years there has been a need to establish priority routes.

In order to do so it is necessary for an authority clearly to indicate where the routes shall lie and strictly to enforce traffic and parking regulations throughout the priority periods. The fact that that has not been done is an indication of the difficulty of obtaining agreement among the 33 highway authorities which make up the metropolis, including the London boroughs. It is extremely difficult for them to agree on technical matters. In addition, the strands of political difficulties that run between them would make it impossible for them to establish the priority routes and the strict disciplines that are necessary to make the system work.

There is a record of disagreements among the London boroughs. Indeed, they have split into two different bodies —the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. That gives one an idea of the difficulty of reaching major agreements. For many years we on the Standing Conference for the Planning of London and the South-East talked about the redevelopment of Docklands. The GLC was most anxious to obtain a single view. Although the need existed, the London boroughs in the area concerned would not co-operate. What has since been done by the single authority is magical. Perhaps it is the best major city redevelopment in Europe.

The London boroughs were invited to take responsibility for traffic lights. They refused to do so because they could not agree and the Secretary of State has taken on the responsibility. Such experience has shown that any attempt to set up a body which would be elected by all 33 London boroughs and the local authorities within the metropolis would be bound to flounder and fail to reach agreement on issues that need clear decisions and strong disciplines to make them work. The proposal therefore is not practical.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the GLC had an effective team of traffic engineers and offered strategic guidance. However, the London boroughs did not always take a great deal of notice and continually reminded the GLC that they were the highway authorities. Of course the great anomaly in London is that each local authority is a highway authority. As I said on Second Reading, I congratulate my noble friend, the Secretary of State and their predecessors on their courage in grasping the nettle and saying that there is only one way to establish a system of priority routes. The Secretary of State must take control and set up the office of director of traffic. We must have consultation at every level with every London borough and every local authority. Everything should be done to try to obtain their agreement because they are greatly concerned about routes which go through their areas. I hope that a large measure of agreement will be secured, but at the end of the day the Secretary of State must take the decision and lay down the disciplines. However attractive the noble Lord's scheme is as regards gathering together the democratic interests in our vast metropolis, I am afraid that it will not work. I hope that my noble friend will stick to his plan and reject the amendment.

Lord Tordoff

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has sold the pass. He complained about the inability of the 33 London boroughs to get their act together. The answer is to have the type of planning arrangements suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I do not necessarily accept every jot and tittle of this series of amendments and I should not like to set about drafting an appropriate amendment. The Government are papering over the cracks that were left by the removal of the GLC. It was not a body whose passing I totally regret, but in this area it was capable of doing a proper job.

The title of Traffic Director of London is a total misnomer. Were he such a person there might he something to be said for his position, but he will be no more than the director of red routes. The impact of red routes on the rest of the traffic management of the Greater London area is beyond his remit. It is not for the Traffic Director of London to deal with coaches in the Victoria area, in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has problems. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, attempts to put the integration of a proper traffic system before the Committee.

The proposal cannot be dismissed on the dogmatic premise which came from the Government Benches and which doubtless will come from the Front Bench in a moment. Such dogmatism does no good for the traffic management of London. I hope that the Government will think again, not necessarily accepting this amendment but examining the question of red routes. I do not suggest that no priority routes should come into the centre of London, nor that this country's capital should not have special arrangements. But I suggest that the Bill is a piecemeal approach and that it is necessary to set up a strategic authority to oversee the movement of traffic in the capital.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The Committee will not be surprised to know that the Government cannot accept these amendments. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will be delighted to know that we have no intention of recreating a GLC-style authority for transport in London. We want action to tackle London's urgent traffic problems. We do not want more bureaucracy and grand strategic plans like the Greater London development plan, which took 11 years from the start of preparatory work to ministerial approval and was out of date before work could begin.

We have set a broad framework within which those with transport and traffic responsibilities can work. This contains five main elements.

First, we must make sure that London is properly linked to national and international transport networks. That is why we are constructing new road links to east London and Docklands. It is why BR has opened a new direct service from Liverpool Street to Stansted and why legislation is before Parliament for the construction of a new rail link between Paddington and Heathrow.

Secondly, we have to ensure that people and goods do not have to travel through London if they do not need to. This is not just a roads issue: for example, new rail facilities are being installed to link the Channel Tunnel to areas beyond the South East. But of course the main need is to avoid forcing people on to London's already congested roads. Since 1983 the number of heavy goods vehicles in London has been cut by a quarter. The number in central London has nearly halved—impressive proof of the success of the M.25. We want to make sure that the motorway continues to provide an effective by-pass for London. That is why we are planning to add a fourth lane to the whole of the M.25. The privately financed Dartford Bridge will be open later this year, removing one of the M.25's worst bottlenecks.

Thirdly, we have to cater for growth in demand for transport within London. We want to meet those demands with transport systems which are safe, efficient and respect the environment. For many types of journey that points to better rail services. We are opening up Docklands and poorly served areas of south-east London with the Jubilee Line extension costing over …1 million. Substantial relief to central London commuters will be provided by the …1.4 billion east-west Crossrail which will directly link BR's suburban services into Liverpool Street with those into Paddington. We have safeguarded the route of the Chelsea-Hackney Underground line. Network SouthEast is now receiving new coaches at the rate of eight per week, and this is set to continue. The …100 million redevelopment of Liverpool Street station will be completed by the end of this year. On London Underground the first of the Central Line's new trains, part of the line's …700 million modernisation programme, will enter service in little more than a year from now. Those are impressive figures.

Fourthly, we have to tackle the congestion blackspots on London's roads. We have to accept that many journeys and deliveries in London cannot realistically be made by rail. Road traffic in London is likely to go on growing, though more slowly than in the rest of the country. The department plans to spend some …1.9 billion over the next 10 years on selective improvements to the trunk road system—the upgrading of the North Circular is an example—to remove the worst bottlenecks and accident black-spots; and in this financial year we have accepted for transport supplementary grant 37 major borough road schemes worth over …450 million.

However, we cannot hope to meet all the demands by building major new roads. That brings me to our fifth priority for action; that is, obtaining more from the existing network, which means better traffic management. The Road Traffic Bill contains a major new initiative in this area by providing for the implementation of a network of priority routes. The routes represent an efficient way of overhauling London's principal road network and allocating additional road capacity in accordance with transport and environmental objectives. The routes will complement the longer-term transport programmes and will bring real benefits to London in the short to medium term.

The routes will be based on existing primary routes in London. Special stopping, loading and unloading controls, strictly enforced with appropriate penalties and other traffic management measures, will smooth the flow of traffic so that people and goods can reach their destinations in London more reliably and safely. Better reliability will cut down on wasted resources; more suitably parked vehicles will help to reduce accidents; and less stop/start conditions will reduce highly polluting vehicle emissions. I am sure that those measures will be welcomed by all sides of the Committee.

New controls and traffic management measures will provide additional capacity which can be used to help existing road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, and will draw traffic out of residential areas. Special help will be provided to buses, to which my noble friend Lord Nugent referred. Buses have the potential to be one of the most efficient means of transport, but they suffer badly from congested conditions. Improving their services is the only way of increasing public transport capacity in the short term.

The introduction of the priority routes will be co-ordinated by our traffic director, who will work closely with the local authorities within the framework of the Government's overall policy. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, Ministers in Parliament must answer for the actions of that traffic director and the Department of Transport as a whole.

The approach and actions I have described add up to a coherent strategy. It avoids the need for a masterplan and a strategic traffic authority to seek to implement it. So far as the priority routes are concerned, the traffic director will provide a firm strategic direction, over which there will be wide consultation with the local authorities and others.

We are confident of the success of these proposals. Although we have not yet completed the assessments of the findings of the first survey of the trunk road part of the red route pilot scheme, anyone who has travelled along the route, as I have, will have observed that journey times are more reliable, traffic is moving more freely and there is less illegal parking. There have been reports in the newspapers of bus drivers and passengers commenting on shorter journey times. That has been confirmed by officers of London Buses Limited.

Some commentators have also remarked on the positive benefits for traffic now that the first part of the pilot scheme has settled down. Some people, such as certain traders, are having to make adjustments but we have made every possible provision for essential activity on the route.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

This is a very interesting Second Reading speech on Part II of the Bill. However, I do not believe that it addresses the specific points raised by the amendment. We have heard about the wonders which the Government are carrying out as regards the M.25 and the Channel Tunnel link. I do not remember the Government putting very much money into the high speed rail link to the Channel Tunnel. Perhaps the Minister will address himself specifically to the amendment before the Committee.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am doing that. I am seeking to persuade the Committee that the Government's transport policies for London have coherent and easily recognisable aims. Therefore, we do not need a new traffic authority as proposed by the amendment. I have moved through the various modes of transport and I am now commenting on the red route proposals with which this Bill is specifically concerned.

For all the reasons I have given, I agree most strongly with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he asks what good this proposal will do. I do not believe that the proposal would achieve anything. The Government have the right proposals in the Bill for improvements on red routes. I believe that the Committee should reject the amendment.

Lord Strabolgi

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say whether that firm strategic direction and the other matters which he mentioned include any consideration of the Victoria coach station? I spoke about that in the debate at some length. He ignored the question. This is London's main coach station which has been allowed to grow in the middle of a residential area. It is a conservation area and is probably the most beautiful area in the whole of London. The Government seem to do nothing about it.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am tempted to say that the Government will do exactly as much as the GLC did when it was in power. However, the noble Lord will be aware that the provision is not directly concerned with the introduction of red routes, although that will help with the passage of coaches to and from central London. The local authority has powers to restrict coaches on certain routes and certain roads around the area; those powers can and should be used.

Lord Strabolgi

But that is no use if there is a central coach station. I am not speaking of tourist coaches but of long distance coaches which come into the centre of London from the North, South, East and West. It is the one coach station in the whole of London. Surely that must be considered from a strategic point of view. It is far too big a problem for the local authority. I understood that the Department of Transport was taking over the matter.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

As I understand it, London Regional Transport is responsible for the coach station.

Lord Clinton-Davis

If I may say so, the Minister is strangely dismissive of an important point made by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. I do not propose to enlarge on the argument at this time but would encourage my noble friend to come back to the point at Report stage when the Minister may have considered it. It was not in his brief today and he was therefore unable to reply properly. I cannot accept a situation where he is so quickly dismissive of a cogent argument.

It has been an interesting debate, as I felt it might be when I tabled the amendment. I was in no way disappointed by the obvious response of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He spoke about the "ghost" of the GLC inhabiting these Benches. But it is the spectre of disorganisation and chaos of London transport that inhabits London today. It is that which is the problem and that which needs to be put right. It is that problem which the Minister refuses to address properly, and I shall turn to his argument in a moment.

The noble Lord stresses the importance of London as our capital city. I agree with everything that he said in that regard. However, does he not see the chaos which now haunts us? Whatever the Minister may say, the Government have been in office for 12 years and the people of London know that the situation is not one which will be satisfied by government promises. The Government have lost credibility on the issue. The people of London must live with the situation day in and day out. They know that it is a situation which is hugely detrimental to sustaining the capital as a centre for commerce, as a financial centre and as a capital of which we can all be proud. A great deal is at stake. In that respect I am afraid that the noble Lord did not follow the argument that he adduced.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene and ask whether, in his eloquent speech, he will address himself to the idea of why interposing yet another layer of authority between the department and the local authorities would be of benefit.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I was about to turn to that point so it was remarkably anticipated by the noble Lord.

I believe that the noble Lord is himself overwhelmed by the arguments which consumed his Benches when they were discussing the GLC. The Government advanced no serious proposition at that stage. The arguments were directed to their malevolence and attitude in regard to one specific individual. I have my own reasons for not being a great admirer of his, but that is another matter; I would not have decided to dismantle a strategic authority. In many respects it performed well under that leadership and indeed under the leadership also of many others, including the LCC before it. The LCC was dismantled also for ideological reasons; the Tories knew that they could not win it. They thought that they could win the GLC and were largely disappointed on that front too. Therefore they simply go about dismantling things.

The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asks what benefit there would be. That is a perfectly reasonable question. I believe that because of its central importance to this country we should follow the example of other cities. When we look at Paris, New York, Brussels or almost any capital city in the industrialised world, we see that it is regulated by an elected assembly. That is because in regard to strategic matters elected representatives should exercise the authority.

The noble Lord refers to that as bureaucracy. We could refer to bureaucracy intervening in any area of democratic government. Democracy does involve delay from time to time but that is not a reason for dismantling parliaments; it is not a reason for dismantling the concept of democracy which we all hold so dear. But somehow or other London is to be excluded from that consideration.

The noble Lord then said that London must be the concern of central government so that Ministers may be directly answerable for all the operations carried out in London. He and I and many others in this Chamber and in another place know that before and during the rule of the GLC there were many debates about London. Ministers from both parties were not afraid of coming to the Dispatch Box in order to join in those debates. Government had a role to play; admittedly in some respects it was an advisory role but in other respects it was a central role. Therefore I cannot accept his argument and it belies the experience of many of us.

Eventually the noble Lord came down in favour of this series of quangos or tangos—I know not what they are. I understand that a quango is a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation and a tango is a totally autonomous nongovernmental organisation. There is a whole series of them; is that not over-weening bureaucracy? I mentioned no fewer than six organisations dealing with London transport in one way or another, plus the Traffic Control Systems Unit and the London Accident Analysis Unit; there is now to be another in the form of the Joint Committee for Parking Enforcement. That is nine separate organisations. Is that not bureaucracy gone riot? The argument does not stand up.

I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and thought that he would come down positively in favour of the arguments I adduced. He dealt with them one by one to support everything I said, and most classically the argument regarding the difficulty of obtaining agreement between 33 different authorities. That was a point seized on by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It is for precisely that reason that we need an elected body which is capable of bringing the pieces together when we are dealing with matters of such moment to the people of London. I cannot accept that it is right for a government, which cannot be in touch with so many of the issues that affect those concerned, to take them over, albeit through the traffic director.

The Minister went on to repeat his Second Reading speech. I believe that he is somewhat out of touch with reality. Why do we now have promises? Why have we not had action in the past 12 years? Why has London been reduced to such a state under their tutelage? The fact is that transport has become a matter of enormous concern to Londoners, who are not going to be distracted by the kind of arguments we have heard today.

There is a totally different attitude to rail and road. The Minister said they are providing …1.9 billion for selected improvements in dealing with the road network. It is about time that they did so. But why do they take a different attitude about rail? Why is the financing of the railways on a different basis from that relating to road transport? These are serious matters. I am not entirely sure that the Minister was wise to raise such wide issues in relation to this proposal. However, that is a matter for his choice.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he would give way and explain to me why—not in the 12 years that the Government have been in power but since they took over control of London Regional Transport—investment in the underground system has been much higher than it was in the days of the GLC.

Lord Clinton-Davis

It was because the GLC had restrictions imposed upon them by the Government's local government policies, as the Minister well knows. It was not free to do all it wanted to do. It was answerable to the Government in many respects, and the Government cannot slide off the argument on that basis. We are not asking for the re-installation of the GLC, as I have indicated. This is a much narrower matter, although nevertheless necessary. I am sorry that the Government, supported by some of their colleagues, have decided to ride away from the argument on the basis of a reiteration of innumerable promises—promises which of course they will not be able to implement, in any event. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I dare say that we shall return to it at another stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 82B and 82C not moved.]

6.30 p.m.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 83: Page 40, line 42, after ("Commissioners") insert: ("() representatives of the local business community;").

The noble Lord said: Following that merry excursion, I think we can come down to the nitty-gritty of how this will work and try to make it a little more workable.

I wish to move Amendment No. 83 and speak to Amendments Nos. 84, 87 and 90, all of which deal with the question of additional consultation on the proposals for priority routes. In particular, they specifically allow statutory consultation on the red route network, traffic management guidance and the director's network plan for road users and businesses.

The extension of such consultation is important because the impact of the red routes on the local business community, for instance, is clearly a matter of considerable anxiety. That is why in Amendment No. 83 I have specifically included representatives of the local business community on the face of the Bill. It may be that the noble Lord will say that consultations will take place on an informal basis, but it seems to me that as this is a specific group of people whose livelihood would be at risk if the red routes go wrong they should be properly consulted as of right.

Amendment No. 84, which is also in my name, refers to such organisations of road users as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. Here one thinks of the Freight Transport Association and of the cycling organisations in the London area. Those people deserve to be consulted on the impact of the red routes on their daily lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who will speak to his amendments, casts the net even wider. I have no great priority for my amendments; but I specifically feel that the one referring to local businesses is extremely important and should be on the face of the Bill in the words that I proposed, or in some other form of words which the Government may care to suggest. It is unreasonable to expect this matter to be left to the boroughs. We have all heard about the inadequacy of the boroughs in dealing with the red routes. Clearly, this should be a matter to be dealt with by the traffic director. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I have not the slightest doubt that there will be much support among your Lordships for Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. Certainly, the Opposition will support them. Amendments Nos. 85,87 and 90 are linked with those two amendments. This group deals with the question of the priority routes. Noble Lords may have noticed that there are a number of later amendments in my name, but those deal with the local plans and I shall be speaking to those separately.

Amendment No. 85, also under Clause 44, refers to consultation by the Secretary of State before making a priority route scheme. Amendment No. 87, under Clause 45, deals with consultation by the Secretary of State before issuing traffic management guidance. Amendment No. 90, under Clause 47, concerns consultation by the Director before making a network plan. Those amendments all deal with the general London situation.

Perhaps I may speak about the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, concerning the local business community. At the Committee stage in the other place, Mr. Christopher Chope, the Minister for roads and traffic, said that there is much exaggeration about the impact of the pilot scheme on traders. I wonder whether that is the correct position. In any case, that would not justify the Government in not accepting the amendment suggesting that there should be representatives of the local business community who should be called in to consultation on the priority route scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also referred to the position of cyclists. Naturally we welcome the acceptance by the Department of Transport of the 1,000-mile network cycle scheme in London. But where will cyclists be consulted? We shall be coming to the position of local schemes later in our consideration, but where will be the provisions for the cycling network to be consulted, bearing in mind that people will make journeys by cycle not just in one borough but crossing a number of boroughs? Their views should therefore be considered on a wider basis.

In reply to a question as to whether the public would be able to participate in consultation, Mr. Chope said on 29th January (at col. 235 of Hansard): In so far as local authorities choose to participate in the way I hive described, they will take into account the representations made to them by the public. As elected representatives of the people, they may not find it necessary to hold formal consultations on every occasion because they will know the public's views on a particular matter. The public are not being excluded; their representatives will have ample opportunity to participate". But in col. 233 Mr. Chope had said: There is certainly no provision to direct the local authorities to consult, but I should have thought that responsible local authorities would choose to do so". Therefore, the purpose of the three amendments submitted in my name, that is Amendments Nos. 85, 87 and 90, is to give opportunity by public notice for individuals to make consultations on the priority network scheme. It is vital that that should be done. If the Minister can see why that should not take place, I should like to know where the consultation will be because there can be no more effective consultation than that by the public through public notice.

I shall deal with the other amendments about the local plans when we come to that group.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

We have considered these amendments carefully in the light of comments made during this debate and debates at other stages of the Bill in another place. Nevertheless, we remain of the view that it is unnecessary to go beyond what is presently proposed in the Bill. The consultation provisions for priority route designations, the preparation or variation of the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance and the traffic director's network plan will follow normal practice (precedented in the Local Government Act 1985) and encompass bodies which have a statutory role in the operation of London's road and transport systems.

They will include local authorities, either directly or indirectly, and it is reasonable to expect the authorities to consult local road user groups and local businesses. Statutory consultation by the Secretary of State with these groups would not be practicable. Providing such a duty would raise questions on which interest groups to consult. It would be impossible to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive and up-to-date list. This could open the way to disputes and would be thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, we believe that informal consultation would be much better; and in practice the Secretary of State would consult the major national organisations and those with a London-wide remit. The same informal division of responsibility for consultation would be equally applicable to the traffic director's network plan.

The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, requiring consultation with affected road users by public notice are in practice calls for consultation with the general public. The noble Lord asked me particularly what reaction there had been to the trial scheme. There is no hard information but, as my noble friend said, the indications are good. Once again I remain of the view that consultation with the public is appropriate for the local authorities, which have direct responsibilities to their residents and businesses. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject these amendments.

Lord Tordoff

The Government want to have their cake and their halfpenny. They want to play both ends against the middle. They are not going to allow the local authorities to get on with the job, but they are going to leave all the clearing up of the mess to the local authorities at the end of the day. It is not the Secretary of State's job to deal with consultation; it is merely his job to dictate through the London traffic manager and leave it to the boroughs to do the messy bits.

Once again this reveals a substantial weakness in the Bill and the Government's attitude to it. They are making a mistake specifically over local business people. It may well be that there has not been an adverse reaction in practice, but often the point at which the adverse reaction comes is before a new scheme is put into practice. That is when people's worries and fears need to be calmed, and only someone who has a full grasp of the network is in a position to carry out the consultation process. I do not suppose that we are going to shift the Government on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 84 to 85A not moved.]

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 [The Secretary of State's traffic management guidance]:

6.45 p.m.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 86: Page 41, line 17, at end insert: ("() Any such guidance shall include provisions for protecting the interests of disabled persons whose disabilities make it necessary or expedient to resort to the use of a private road vehicle in London;").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 86 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 91, 92, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 109, which I hope will meet the Committee's convenience. The Secretary of State's traffic management guidance should draw the London authorities' and the traffic director's attention to the need to consider and do whatever is possible to protect the mobility interests of disabled people who cannot use public transport. If the parking needs of these people are not carefully considered at the start, there is a risk that they will be forgotten until it is too late. A reference to the needs of disabled people on the face of the Bill would help to ensure that this is avoided.

Just as references to the needs of disabled people in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the Transport Act 1985 have led to useful improvements in transport, so would references in this Bill. It might be argued that to draw particular attention to the needs of any one group of road users could be construed as tending to dismiss the needs of other groups. For example, drawing attention to orange badge holders might appear to place others, such as cyclists, at a disadvantage. The Committee will recognise immediately that cyclists can, if necessary, walk. Many orange badge holders are unable to walk at all, and those who can walk can often walk only a limited distance, and often are totally unable to use public transport.

During the Committee stage in the House of Commons Mr. Chope gave an undertaking that the Secretary of State's new traffic management and parking guidance would address the needs of disabled people. He then went on to ask the Committee to reject the amendment because the needs and interests of disabled people could already be accommodated adequately under the existing law. This is beside the point. The amendment does not seek to increase or change anyone's powers in relation to road traffic and parking. It seeks merely to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are not overlooked.

In many London boroughs traffic planning and management are in the hands of people who know nothing about disability. As a result, whether or not it is intended, traffic control measures often adversely affect disabled motorists more than they need to or indeed should. Judging from the experience with the pilot red route scheme reported by the Islington Disablement Association, a failure to consult at the beginning can lead to many difficulties for disabled motorists. Minor improvements were achieved later, but at much greater expense, and expense of effort.

Opportunities to ease some of the problems created for orange badge holders are lost if their needs are not considered from the start. Such consideration obviously involves consulting local disablement groups with a knowledge of the problems that could be created in the area by establishing a priority route. If nobody is given responsibility for ensuring that the needs of disabled motorists are met, it is quite likely that they will not be met at all. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I rise to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, myself and other noble Lords. I am extremely disappointed, to say the least, about the way in which the Minister in another place approached this whole problem. The arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, this evening are compelling. There is a clear case for making special exceptions to deal with disabled people for the reasons that he has given and for reasons about which in another context, when we dealt with the New Roads and Street Works Bill, the Minister was to some degree—and this was to be welcomed—accommodating. One can only hope that the Minister in this place will be rather more accommodating than his colleague in another place.

Having spoken to a number of disabled people in the areas affected by the priority routes, I have found that they are concerned not simply by the priority routes but about the inability to park in adjacent roads off the priority routes. It is no good the Minister saying that that is a matter for the local authority. The local authority is vitally affected by the way in which the priority routes work, and there therefore needs to be close consultation, which has not so far taken place, to address the problem. If a disabled person is unable to park his vehicle or is unable to be driven to a place close to where he wishes to go and finds it impossible or virtually impossible to park nearby, what can he or she do?

I am concerned not so much about the allocation of responsibilities as the solution of a very important problem. When the noble Lord also says that what is needed here is someone who can really address the problems of the disabled because he is close to the advice of people who are so affected, he makes another dramatically important point which I hope the Minister will deal with.

In addition, there is concern about the orange badge scheme. This matter was raised in another place—ineffectually, unfortunately. The Minister will be aware that four authorities in London simply do not recognise the scheme. They are in areas in central London which are absolutely vital.

The Minister will be familiar with these matters from the debates we had on another important area of policy; namely, on the Bill that I referred to earlier which it; now in another place. This issue is no less compelling. I can only hope—I do not propose to say anything more at this stage—that the Minister will address himself to these issues far more positively than was the case in another place, where the response was exceptionally disappointing.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I support these amendments. I have added my name to all except Amendment No. 86. The fact that I did not add my name to Amendment No. 86 is pure oversight on my part. I support them all. I see them as very necessary because disabled people cannot use public transport as an alternative. It is crucial to have some reference on the face of the Bill to ensure that the needs of disabled people are catered for.

There is very little that I can add to the comprehensive introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the powerful support of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I should like to say a few words in support of Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 which were not tabled in another place. Amendment No. 95 proposes an obligation to consult disability organisations beforehand. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, that is very important if the problems encountered by Islington, with the introduction of the red route scheme, are to be avoided.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to the useful references in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the Transport Act 1985 to the needs of disabled people. I remember very well how doggedly my noble friend Lord Ingleby pursued the issue before he achieved the references in those Acts. They have proved 1 o be effective. The Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People says so.

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments. However, if he is unable to do so, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who I know can be just as persistent as my noble friend Lord Ingleby, will pursue the issue so that eventually either these amendments or something very like them will appear on the face of the Bill.

Viscount Mountgarret

I should like to add my voice in support of this amendment. I have nothing to add by way of argument, but I think it might be useful if my noble friend on the Front Bench realised that there is a considerable amount of support for the principle underlying this amendment. I hope very much that great consideration will be given thereto.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

At Second Reading I spoke about the needs of disabled people. I should like to give the Committee an example of what I did today. I attended a health authority meeting at Kensington Town Hall. I had to pre-arrange my parking. I had to pre-arrange for somebody to help me out with my wheelchair—in fact, that person was not there. I asked a young man of about 20 to lift my wheelchair out of the car. He could not believe how heavy it was. He blew and he puffed. He thought the whole situation was very difficult indeed.

For the first time we have more elderly people in society than young people. This is very important because many of them will in time become disabled. We have legislation before us which has new aspects; namely, the red routes. Therefore I feel it is very important that we have the needs of disabled people on the face of the Bill. I invite the Minister and some of his young and able civil servants to come round London with me and spend the day parking, doing the shopping and visiting a hospital or two, to see exactly what it is like. I say that because, like the young man of about 20, I do not think that they realise what it is like for disabled people and for those who have to help them. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be more helpful than his colleague in another place.

Lord Fanshawe of Richmond

I support the amendment. I should like to comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, regarding the orange badge scheme. I declare an interest in that I have an orange badge. It is quite impossible for someone from outside London to park in Westminster or Chelsea because the orange badge is not accepted, as was indicated by the noble Lord in his earlier remarks. This means that a disabled person from outside London who cannot walk any distance at all and who has a perfectly genuine orange badge is quite unable to visit any part of the city of Westminster or of Kensington and Chelsea. I believe that other boroughs are also involved. I know about those two boroughs because I applied for and obtained a badge for myself for Westminster which enables me to use the orange badge with a special pass for Westminster. However, it is a major operation and can only be done by someone who actually lives in London. It means that someone living in the provinces, who is perhaps coming up from the countryside, is unable to park. I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to what has been said and will accept my noble friend's proposals.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I hope I shall be able to reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that these proposed amendments are not strictly necessary. As noble Lords will know, the Government have a long-standing commitment to promote the improvement of transport facilities and opportunities for disabled people. We attach particular importance to their interests being reflected in transport developments. As noble Lords will be aware, our concern is reflected in the provisions of the Transport Act 1985, which established the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to consider these needs and advise the Secretary of State before he issues any guidance about appropriate measures to be taken.

Given these commitments to helping disabled people, it will follow automatically that both the Secretary of State's new traffic management and parking guidance will address the interests of disabled people. My honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave a firm undertaking in the other place that this would be so; and I repeat that undertaking now, although I appreciate that noble Lords have already commented on it.

The Secretary of State's new traffic management guidance will be an integral part of the arrangements for implementing priority routes. It will need to be taken into account by the traffic director in preparing his network plan and by both him and the local authorities in preparing the features of their local plans for priority routes. I have no doubt that local plans will include, as appropriate, measures to protect the interest of disabled people in the same way as I expect other interests will be taken into account.

Implementation of the priority routes will be largely through the exercise of existing powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Regulations made under that Act provide that particular road traffic regulation orders governing stopping and waiting must provide exemptions for orange badge holders in those areas where the orange badge scheme applies. Vehicles displaying a current disabled person's badge are already statutorily exempt from wheel-clamping. Although the law currently provides that a vehicle can be removed when it is parked dangerously or obstructively or is illegally parked, orange badge holders are already exempted from many of the parking offences where removal is authorised. For example, they are exempted from removal where an initial charge is not paid at a meter bay or where their vehicle is left longer than the permitted excess period at a meter bay. In practice therefore orange badge holders' vehicles can be removed where they are parked illegally only in limited circumstances; for example, unlawfully in residents' bays or dangerously. This power is used extremely rarely which suggests that there is no need for further statutory protection.

I believe that ample provision has been made for people with a disability in the red route pilot scheme. Indeed I visited it myself and looked carefully to see what arrangements had been made for the disabled. Orange badge holders and vehicles adapted to carry people with a disability can pick up or set down on red lines. Orange badge holders can park for up to two hours in signed loading areas and for an unlimited time in waiting areas. In addition, certain waiting areas have been set aside for orange badge holders' exclusive use. I hope that perhaps in the future the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will find advantages from such schemes.

I appreciate the fact that the orange badge scheme —I accept what my noble friend Lord Fanshawe said in this respect—does not apply in central London at present. But the Government are committed to considering whether aspects of the scheme can be so applied. The four central London authorities concerned have agreed to consider the possibility of granting concessions to badge holders.

7 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but can he tell us what is the problem? Why should these four boroughs be permitted not to recognise the orange badge scheme? What is to stop the Government using the facility of this Bill to ensure that the law is generally applied throughout London?

Lord Tordoff

Perhaps I may also be permitted to ask a question. I did not speak before, although my name is attached to the amendment. I very much support it. However, the amendment was much more eloquently moved than I could have done. Can the Minister assure me that, as the law stands at present, the orange badges can be used on the red routes which run through Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, in the same way as they can be used on red routes which run through other boroughs where orange badges are recognised? If he cannot assure me of that fact, the provision must be put into the Bill. That is the only way we can ensure that legislation is on the statute book which will force Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and all the other inner-London boroughs, to comply with the rest of the red route system.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The answer is that the pilot red route does not cover the area of the four London authorities which do not at present recognise the national orange badge scheme. However, as I was about to say, and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am confident that discussions with those four local authorities will lead to improvements in the parking provisions made for disabled people.

Lord Tordoff

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but that answer is not adequate. It is not sufficient to say that he has every confidence in the matter. We want the certainty that people with orange badges are treated in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea in the same way as they would be treated in other London boroughs on the red routes. I submit that the only way he can ensure that that is so is to accept the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen; or, alternatively, the Government must put forward other amendments on the same point.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

It is not strictly a question of accepting these amendments; it is a slightly separate issue. As Members of the Committee will be aware, discussions are taking place about various other changes which may be made to the orange badge scheme in general. I understand that those four central London authorities may join the national orange badge scheme; that is, if the discussions are successful.

I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments have been moved. I trust the Committee will accept that the Government take the needs and interests of the disabled very much into account in their proposals. I am also well aware of the strength of feeling in the Committee on the issue and of the support that the amendments of my noble friend have received this evening. I hope that my noble friend will allow me to take the amendments away for consideration before the next stage of the Bill. With that assurance, I trust that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

We appear to be moving very slowly but nevertheless in the right direction. Having been appraised of the amendments, I should have thought that the Minister could have anticipated the concerns which would be expressed in the Chamber, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and also by others. I should have thought that he would have departed from the line taken in another place and that he would have presented the Committee with a clear assurance, not simply that he would be cogitating on these matters but that he would also be introducing amendments. That is what Members of the Committee want to hear tonight.

I fear that statements that the Minister has every confidence in discussions—which incidentally have been going on interminably—coming somehow or other to a successful conclusion are not enough. This is the right Bill. Indeed this is the time for the Minister to make as significant a contribution on this issue as he made as regards the New Roads and Street Works Bill. We thank him for that. Disabled people throughout the country will applaud him for the initiative which he took at that stage which was not taken elsewhere.

I believe that the Minister has the opportunity to do rather better than to express confidence in these discussions. Tonight he has the opportunity to emphasise that he will examine positively the ideas which have been adumbrated. But he has the opportunity to do more than that: he has the opportunity to say that the Government will come forward with amendments which will take on board the points which have been the subject of long consultations and which have been expressed formidably by the noble Lord in this debate.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Before the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps the Minister will clarify the following point. As these amendments are supported by organisations for disabled people outside this Chamber can he say what harm they would do? He said that they are unnecessary. However, what harm could they do? They would certainly please many people.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear at the end of my speech. I said that I will give careful consideration to the amendments and that I shall return to the issue at a later stage. I had hoped that my noble friend would appreciate that fact. I really cannot go any further than that tonight. It is normal practice in this Chamber that one gives such an undertaking in that way in Committee. I should have thought that that was a very normal thing for Ministers to do. If Members of the Committee will not accept my word that I shall return to the matter on Report, then I do not know what I can do.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Members of the Committee will be indebted to the noble Baroness. I believe that she has persuaded the Minister to be a little clearer than he was in the statement that he made before her intervention. To say that he will come back on the matter, means that he will come back with amendments designed to address the difficulties and abuses which exist at present. Now that we have heard from the Minister to that effect, I am sure that the Committee will regard that as making this debate thoroughly worthwhile.

Lord Swinfen

I should like to begin by thanking all those who have supported what I have been trying to do with this group of amendments. It is extremely important that groups of disabled people are properly consulted in these matters. I say that because most of the time such planning and work is carried out by able-bodied people who do not have the real ability to understand the difficulties involved.

It is all very well to say that guidance will be given. This is probably an inappropriate simile, but if you have, for example, a small child on a sunny beach, you do not tell him to put on sun cream; you put the sun cream on for him to ensure that his skin does not burn. That is what I am trying to do in this Bill. I am trying to put these amendments into the Bill so that those who have to deal with these matters will see that the provision is there and take important notice of that fact. When the Bill becomes enacted, it will be the first of their works of reference.

As regards the orange badge scheme which was mentioned by many speakers, I have other amendments which will be dealt with at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. I understand that they will be dealt with on Thursday. However, I am most encouraged by what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the Government considering what to do about the scheme in central London. If my noble friend does not come forward with suitable amendments on Report, I shall be inclined to do so. The matter must be sorted out. As I said, the other orange badge amendments that I have tabled will be discussed later. I hope that I shall receive the same kind of support for them as I received for this group of amendments. My noble friend has said that he will take the amendments away and consider them.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I believe that the Minister went further than that. He said that he will be coming back with his own amendments to deal with these matters. That is encouraging. I hope that we shall not return to the stage from which the Minister removed himself.

Lord Swinfen

I do not mind whether my noble friend or I come back at a later stage with amendments that the Government will accept. The important point is that they are put into the Bill. I am happy with the undertaking given by my noble friend, and I offer him the opportunity to talk to me and my advisers between now and Report if he would find that helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]

Clause 45 agreed to.

Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 88: After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:

("Use of vehicles by residents of London

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to provide for every vehicle in London to display a badge which shall show—

1. (a) that the vehicle is owned by a resident of London; or
2. (b) that a fee has been paid for the use of the vehicle in London for the period of time shown on the badge.

(2) For the purposes of this section a "resident of London" is defined as a person whose sole or principal address is in London.

(3) Regulations under this section shall also provide that a resident of London may park his vehicle free of charge in the residents' parking area in the area in which he lives or has his principal address.").

The noble Viscount said: The amendment has two purposes. The first is to deter private cars from entering London. The second is to try to achieve a fairer deal for residents and, bearing in mind what we have just been discussing, to find more parking space for the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.

The first requirement is that the vehicle should display a disc similar to a licence disc on the windscreen. One of the points that it should show is that the vehicle belongs to a resident of London. It is not entirely dissimilar to the present scheme, where someone with an address in London can apply for a resident's parking place. This requirement is more stringent. There are plenty of ways of ensuring that the applicant, or the car, is domiciled in London. The alternative is, and this is important, that a fee has been paid for the use of the vehicle in London.

By implication, I am therefore suggesting that residents should be permitted to park their cars free of charge in the area in which they reside. I see no reason why a person who has his home in London and who pays his car tax in the same way as everyone else should effectively be penalised by having to pay considerably more every year to park his car outside his front door as other more fortunate people can who live elsewhere where such regulations do not exist.

Those who wish to bring their cars into London should be invited to pay a considerable amount for the privilege of so doing. One drawback to that suggestion—I can see the argument—is that those who cannot afford to pay for such a privilege would effectively be debarred from bringing their cars into London. There may be people who can afford to do so without any trouble, and the provision would be biased in their favour. That is not what I intend, and there may be a way around the problem.

The scheme should be feasible. I have not, and I do not think that it is necessary at this stage, dotted all the "i"s and crossed all the "t"s. But badges or discs could be obtained from post offices, travel agents or even traffic wardens at the time if the person did not have time to obtain the disc before entering the metropolis. We should not need parking meters because the money would have been pre-paid. There would be designated areas where one could or could not park as at present. Traffic wardens would still exist. If they came across a motor vehicle that did not display a disc on the windscreen or elsewhere, the driver would be wrapped over the knuckles, or whatever it is that happens to them now. They would have to pay a fine or, better still, have the car towed away to make way for other people to park.

The gates would then be open to consider what people would do with their cars if, understandably, they wanted to drive long distances from their homes to London. Clearly arrangements would have to be made for parking areas, it is hoped adjacent to Underground stations. Public transport would have to be more efficient than it is at the moment and should be made attractive so that people would leave their cars outside London. If the principle were to be adopted, I should be anxious to see that it did not apply to disabled people. A suitable amendment to that effect would have to be tabled later.

That explains the principle of the amendment, and I should be interested to hear what my noble friend feels about it. I raised the matter a few years ago during another road transport debate. It has not got far yet, but I hope that we may make better progress now. I beg to move.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Underhill

I am pleased to have listened to the noble Viscount's explanation of the amendment, because when I looked at it I had no idea that it included what is, in common parlance, road pricing. That is what he is suggesting. As someone who lives in metropolitan Essex, I do not complain about that. It is a matter that cannot be dealt with in an amendment of this kind without consultation or consideration of the regulations that would have to apply.

I fully understand the part of the amendment which deals with residents' parking areas. I passed through parts of London this morning—Leyton, Hackney and Islington—and people there would not be happy at having to display a notice, as required in the amendment, when none of them has a resident's parking place. Tens of thousands of people do not have residents' parking places. They have to park in the road, which is a traffic danger, or they park half on the pavement, which is a danger to pedestrians, especially those with disabilities.

The amendment has far more to it than appears on the surface. Road pricing may have to be considered at some time, but we cannot introduce such a scheme by passing what I thought was an obscure reference to it, until the noble Viscount spoke, without proper consideration of all the problems involved. I am glad that he said that one serious consideration would be public transport. We cannot tackle road pricing unless we alter our ideas about public transport and make it more efficient, cheaper and more easily accessible.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment with such clarity. I agree that the Government should not rule out any realistic ways of reducing traffic congestion in London. I believe that Part II of the Bill is evidence of the priority we attach to reducing congestion and so making life easier for those who live and work in London.

Perhaps I may comment briefly on the supplementary licensing scheme which is proposed in the new clause. I fear that this has a number of disadvantages. First, and most important, it might not do very much to reduce traffic congestion in London. The proposed clause would mean that drivers from outside Greater London would have to pay to enter the capital. Each day 2½ million vehicle trips cross the Greater London boundary. That sounds an enormous number, and it is. But a much greater number of vehicle trips-8 million a day—are made within Greater London. The new clause would provide no deterrent to those trips.

The sort of supplementary licence which is proposed could also give rise to much unfairness. For example, a parent from outside London who drove each day to take his or her child to a school just within the boundary would pay the same charge as a commuter who drove in the rush hour all the way into Central London and who, as a result, contributed much more to congestion. I strongly suspect that enforcement of this kind of scheme could also be a major problem.

To some extent, those are arguments against this scheme rather than against road pricing in general. There hive been proposals for a much more elaborate form of electronic road pricing which, it is claimed, would overcome the disadvantages of a supplementary licence. Electronic road pricing means that throughout London—probably out as far as the M.25 —roadside sensors would be installed. All vehicles would t e fitted with special equipment which would result in the driver being automatically charged when he passed a sensor. In theory, the charges could be varied according to time of day, and they could increase as one got nearer to Central London.

Such a system has never been tried in a city of anything like London's size and complexity. It is clear that there would be enormous practical problems in implementing it here. For example, the technology is not yet available and one can well imagine that enforcing millions of daily transactions could be extremely difficult.

Having said that, I stress that we do not rule out road pricing as a long-term option. The Government are continuing to watch very closely the developments of the relevant technology and experience abroad—though, as I have indicated, this is very limited. However, before we could even think of introducing road pricing in London we should need to undertake very detailed research. We should want to find out whether road pricing would be technically feasible and enforceable and, if it was, what its effect would be not just on traffic but on the whole of London's economy and population.

The Government will certainly bear in mind the points that have been made in this debate by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in considering whether such research should be undertaken. Meanwhile, I hope that after my remarks my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Mountgarret

I am grateful to my noble friend. The purpose of the amendment was to raise this point and I am glad that he feels that the suggestion may be worth consideration, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Discussion must take place with people when one introduces something new. I hope that some of what has been said will be considered.

I put in a plea once again for people whose sole and principal residence is in London. I believe that it is unfair to expect them to pay more to own a car than those outside London. I ask for that to be considered. On the basis of what my noble friend said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46 [The Traffic Director for London]:

[Amendment No. 88A not moved.]

Lord Strathcarron moved Amendment No. 88B: Page 41, line 32, at end insert ("and () of co-ordinating the most efficient management of road space by giving traffic priority to energy and fuel-efficient means of transport.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to encourage the use of the most fuel efficient vehicles. Two of these are the humble moped and the small capacity motor cycle ridden by learner riders. The moped is restricted to 50 cc and it is not capable of going at more than 30 miles per hour. It is incredibly economical doing nearly 100 miles per gallon. The learner riders' machines are restricted to 125 cc and a maximum power output of 12 brake horsepower.

I believe that both these types of motor cycles should be encouraged in London and ought to be allowed to use the bus lanes. Owing to its comparatively low performance the moped is vulnerable in traffic. The learner rider is at his most vulnerable in the early stages of being on the road. It would be much safer for him to be able to use the bus lanes.

When I suggested a little while ago on a previous occasion that all motor cycles should use the bus lane, my noble friend had visions of dispatch riders making up for lost time. It was put to me that pedestrians would be in danger. I said that they were already in danger from the buses, taxis and pedal cyclists who cannot be heard coming along. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will take a more kindly view and allow these two small capacity machines which are very fuel efficient to use the bus lanes. I beg to move.

Viscount Craigavon

I support the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I should declare an interest because I have what he called the humble moped on which I often come to the House. The amendment seems to allow encouragement of cycling, although the noble Lord did not mention it, and it is a fuel efficient means of transport. The Government should be encouraged to discriminate in favour of motor cycles of under 50 cc. which are extremely favourable to the environment. Unfortunately, very few British manufacturers produce them, so perhaps the Government are not encouraged to give a strong response to our pleas. I hope that the Government will take a slightly longer term view on the matter as the roads are becoming clogged with ordinary motor cars. I hope they will encourage people to use fuel efficient methods of transport.

The Viscount of Falkland

I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. As a motor cyclist myself, I should support an amendment which encouraged other motor cyclists to use the bus lanes. However I see the argument that there is a danger with dispatch riders or couriers using the bus lanes. The danger in the problems they present as they meet their deadlines has not yet been dealt with. Perhaps that would be asking too much.

The machines which have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, are eminently suitable for use in bus lanes. Indeed, it is positively dangerous sometimes for them not to be used there. I was glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, rising to his feet because he has the smallest bike I have ever seen and he is the tallest rider of any bike I have seen. I should hate to see him out of a bus lane.

This proposal would encourage others to take to two wheels; apart from motor cycles being more environmentally friendly, they are low consumers of petrol, especially the small machines. It would be an interesting development which may lead to other developments in bus lanes and it would significantly decrease congestion. I support the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I feel something of a trespasser in the debate because I am not so intrepid as any of the three noble Lords who have spoken. I do not have their experience, but nonetheless that did not stop me from speaking on the Second Reading. I broadly supported the proposal then and I support it tonight.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this interesting debate. I have carefully considered the amendment but I am afraid that I cannot support it, largely because it is unnecessary.

One of the aims with priority routes will be to increase their effective existing capacity and to allocate this capacity in accordance with efficiency, safety and environmental objectives. One of the major objectives will be to improve the efficient movement of traffic. This aim will relate to all desirable flows of traffic—including motor cycles, to which my noble friend Lord Strathcarron referred.

As regards the point my noble friend made about allowing motor cyclists to use bus lanes, highway authorities are free to do so under local traffic orders. However, there is no automatic inclusion for motor cycles. That is a decision for the local highway authority. The Government have no plans to alter this arrangement. We believe that there is merit in retaining flexibility. There are some instances where it may be undesirable to encourage motor cyclists to mix with other traffic in bus lanes. They are not slow moving like pedal cycles—the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, referred to pedal cycles—where segregation from the main traffic flow is advantageous. Motor cycles would not qualify either for inclusion on the same grounds as taxis and other high occupancy vehicles. Motor cyclists manoeuvring at speed around buses could present added safety problems. However, I realise that my noble friend was talking about small motor cycles in moving his amendment.

We are reviewing a range of matters connected with bus lanes, including the implications of adding other high occupancy vehicles, but for the moment we see no need to take away the local discretion which already exists in these matters. For those reasons, I do not feel able to accept my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Strathcarron

I am obviously disappointed with that reply. There appears to be little hope of these modest capacity motor cycles being allowed to use bus lanes. One hopes that the traffic director may be a motor cyclist himself and therefore will see the merit in such a proposal. I hope that at some future date the Minister will feel able to reconsider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 89: Page 41, line 34, after ("under") insert ("Part III of").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 89A not moved.]

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 89B: Page 41, line 38, at end insert: ("(6) In setting any objectives under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall take into account—

1. (a) the need to protect local businesses in London;
2. (b) the need to protect the environment;
3. (c) the need to promote road safety;
4. (d) the needs of people with disabilities;
5. (e) the needs of cyclists, pedestrians and public transport; and
6. (f) the need not to encourage further car commuting into central London.").

The noble Lord said: It is noteworthy that Clause 44(2) states: The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers… with a view to improving the movement of traffic". That cannot or should not be the sole purpose of any transport policy. That is one purpose of such a policy, but it is given undue emphasis in this clause. The clause does not refer to questions of safety. The improvement of safety should be—I am sure it is—a purpose of the Government. The clause does not mention any protection of the environment. There is no reference to the need to maintain access to businesses. We know from the pilot projects that have been undertaken so far that there is great concern on the part of business people about reduced turnover. Some business people have claimed they have suffered a reduction in turnover as great as 50 per cent. because customers and deliverers have been unable to stop or find adequate parking.

I have visited the Archway area and I have discussed these issues with a number of shopkeepers. A number of them expressed the anxieties I have just mentioned, although it is fair to say that others were unable to distinguish between the effects of the recession and those of the red route. They blamed both those factors for the reduction in turnover. Nonetheless there is some evidence that businesses have been prejudiced by the pilot route. There is also evidence that speeding has increased and thereby imperilled safety.

The London Borough of Haringey has carried out studies which indicate that, on sections of the pilot route, 85 per cent. of traffic is moving at speeds of between 39 and 42 miles per hour. In other words 85 per cent. of the traffic is moving at or below those speeds while 15 per cent. of the traffic is moving faster, notwithstanding the fact that it is a 30 miles per hour zone. Such speeding would appear to increase the risk of more severe accidents occurring—if that has not already happened.

In another place the Government resisted any attempts to broaden the general purposes of this clause on the grounds that other issues would be made clear in the objectives which are set out in Clause 46. I do not think it is sufficient for Clause 46(5) to state that the Secretary of State shall set the objectives, which he expects the Director to meet in exercising his function;". The Committee is entitled to know what those objectives are, and they should be inscribed on the face of the Bill. This amendment seeks to achieve that aim.

I hope the Government will accept that the issues I have raised are important. Why should the objectives not be inscribed on the face of the Bill? They would counterbalance the emphasis that is given to improving the movement of traffic that is referred to in Clause 44. It is right that Parliament should not only be consulted but should also know precisely what objectives the Government have in mind in giving directions to the traffic director. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I have no hesitation whatever in agreeing that the issues identified by the noble Lord in his amendment are important. Some of them were included in the list of policy aims for the priority route network that we published in our consultation document on the Traffic in London legislative proposals and others have been discussed during the passage of the Bill.

The place to discuss policy aims for the priority routes will be the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance provided for in Clause 45. I can confirm that the issues raised by the noble Lord in his amendment will be discussed in that document. It will follow from this that the traffic director will pay regard to them in preparing his network plan under Clause 47. That plan will provide the framework for the local plans which describe the detailed action to be taken. Therefore the needs will filter down to action on the ground. There is therefore no need to refer to these issues in connection with the objectives which the Secretary of State sets for the traffic director. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I found that an unsatisfactory reply because the Minister asserts one overriding objective, that is the improvement of the traffic flow. It is unreasonable to give major emphasis to that issue without mentioning other matters. The consultation document is not satisfactory as evidence of what the Government propose to do because the Governmen have departed from proposals that they set out in their own White Paper, let alone a consultation document. The same point arises as regards the traffic management guidance. The Committee is entitled to know precisely what the Government have in mind. However, the Minister refuses to provide that information. I shall reconsider what he has said, but I cannot say that I am satisfied with his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 89C to 89E not moved.]

Clause 46 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 47 [The Director's network plan]:

[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]

Clause 47 agreed to.

Clause 48 [Duty of London authorities to prepare local plans]:

[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 93: Page 44, line 13, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: The Committee will recall that earlier I spoke to similar amendments dealing with the position in London as a whole. At that time I said that I would be moving subsequent amendments dealing with local plans. Therefore, in moving Amendment 93, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 94, 97, 99 and 100 to 104.

Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 relate to Clause 48, which deals with consultation by London authorities when preparing local plans; Amendment No. 97 relates to Clause 49 dealing with consultation by the director in preparing a trunk road local plan; Amendment No. 99 relates to Clause 50 and consultation by the Secretary of State in preparing or varying a trunk road local plan; and Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 relate to Clause 53 which deals with consultation by the director before varying a local plan on behalf of a London authority. I shall not read the relevant details of the clauses; but if Members of the Committee have their Bills in front of them, they will see that they all provide for a very limited number of organisations to be consulted, which are mainly statutory bodies.

In Committee in another place amendments were proposed to provide for more public consultation, but they were all rejected by the Government. In relation to the previous group of amendments, I made it clear that the statements made by the Minister in the other place indicated that there were no plans to make it mandatory for local authorities to include the public in consultation.

In relation to a number of other amendments reference has been made to cyclists. My amendments do not deal only with the position in relation to cyclists but with any road users who may be affected by such measures. However, the London Cycling Campaign is extremely anxious that the position of cyclists in general is not being taken into consideration in network plans in London.

We have to decide how we are to include the public in any consultation. In the case of cyclists in particular, the CTC and the Cycle Campaign Network are very important bodies. However, it will be agreed that the majority of cyclists are not likely to be associated with any organisation and do not join a cycle club. In many cases, their cycles are not used for pleasure but solely to travel to and from work. I must say in passing that some of the cycles that I see when I come from the Underground station may be in a dangerous state and many of them have not been oiled for years. The average cyclist will use his or her cycle mainly to travel to and from work. Cyclists will not confine themselves to one borough but will possibly travel through two or three boroughs.

This morning I travelled down Lea Bridge Road in Leyton where there is a so-called cycle track, but only until 9.30 in the morning. I wonder who was consulted on the proposal that the cycle track should cease to be a cycle track after 9.30 in the morning. I also wonder whether the type of cycle track was the subject of consultation with cyclists or with others. Unless the amendments that I propose are adopted or something like them is put into effect the ordinary road user—who in the case of cyclists is not a member of one of the organisations to which I referred—is not likely to be consulted. The amendments suggest that they should be given the opportunity, through public notice, to make representations.

The Minister rejected the idea of a statutory requirement for local authorities to consult. In a number of instances which I quoted in the previous debate, Ministers made it clear that any local authority worth its salt would consult the public in order to let them know what it was doing. However, the only way in which many people will be consulted is by means of a public notice, giving them the opportunity to make their representations. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon the general principle behind the amendments. I beg to move.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

Once again I have considered the amendments carefully, and I still believe that it is unnecessary to go beyond what is presently proposed in the Bill. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, requiring consultation with affected road users by public notice are, in practice, calls for consultation with the general public. I remain of the view that consultation with the public is appropriate for the local authorities, who have direct responsibilities to their residents and businesses.

The local authorities will be consulted by the traffic director and the Secretary of State over any plans they may produce and, when invited to respond to specific proposals, it is reasonable to expect the authorities to consult widely in their areas. When the local authorities—or the traffic director or the Secretary of State in the case of trunk roads—implement local plans they will use powers under the Highways Act 1980 or the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The making of traffic orders, whether for parking places, waiting restrictions or any other purpose, is governed by procedures prescribed by regulations by the Secretary of State. Procedures were revised in 1989 following consultation with local authorities and interested bodies. They provide for proposed traffic orders to be published and advertised locally and in the London Gazette for objections and representations to be made and considered, for public inquiries to be held in some cases and for notification to be given once the order is made. For most orders other than those of a minor technical nature there is a statutory requirement on the order-making authority to consult other highway authorities involved and organisations representing users of the road affected by the order. The 1984 Act itself imposes a requirement on the order-making authority to consult the police.

Many authorities go further and conduct consultation with the local community, particularly on larger schemes. The Government welcome that because public support is an important ingredient for the ultimate success of any traffic management or parking proposal. Where the public are not consulted, direct individuals can learn of proposals from the obligatory notices in local newspapers and, in appropriate cases, from street notices displayed in the area. Therefore there is plenty of opportunity for people likely to be affected by any scheme to make their views known and to influence the decision-making process. Nothing in the Road Traffic Bill bypasses or in any way undermines the procedures laid down in the 1984 Act.

With those remarks, I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.

Lord Underhill

I agree with the Minister that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents people from making representations. However, the answer that we have just received is in line with the replies which were made time and time again at the Bill's Committee stage in another place. There is no encouragement whatsoever of public consultation. We are told that local authorities will be requested to do so by the director or the Secretary of State. As was said in the other place, common sense says that they will consult the public. It is just a question of passing off a responsibility which ought to be laid down in the Bill. My amendments suggest that by public notice there should be an encouragement for members of the public to take part in any community action on plans in their own area. That seems to be a sensible move. It is not opening up public consultation to suggest that the official notice that one sees in local papers under the heading "Official Notices" will be read by a cyclist who wants to go down Lea Bridge Road, if he learns after it has been decided that there is to be a cycle track.

I am disappointed with the reply. It is a repetition of what the Minister said in the other place. I suppose that in so far as there is continuity, that is to be praised, but there is no movement at all. However, I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 94 to 96 not moved.]

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 [The Director's trunk road local plans]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 96A: Page 44, line 41, at end insert: ("(2) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction to the Director under subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that the relevant local authority is not able to prepare a local plan for that section of trunk road under section 48(5) above.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House for me to speak also to Amendment No. 98A. Amendment No. 96A deals with the director's trunk road local plans and Amendment No. 98A deals with the Minister's trunk road local plans. The argument is somewhat the same in the case of both amendments.

The amendments provide that there is a presumption in favour of the local authority to prepare the local plan for any trunk road in its jurisdiction unless there is a good reason to the contrary. It makes good sense for the local authority to prepare such a plan, on the grounds that there will be consistency with any local p an prepared for the borough roads in that borough-1 and that the local authority is more likely to engage in proper consultation with local interests.

I should like to emphasise that there are two very important elements. If the proposals for the priority route are not prepared in a way which is consistent with plans for other roads, there is a danger that the priority route will be sterilised, becoming a place which is difficult to service and for businesses to thrive in. There is also the need for full co-ordination between the activities on the priority route and on adjacent side roads—that is a point made in other debates—such as provision for parking and loading. Clearly there will be competition in the side streets for parking space for residents and businesses in that street and for people whose parking is displaced from the priority route. Again that point was emphasised in our debate on disability. Such co-ordination can be achieved best if the same agency performs the task.

Consultation may also be improved if the local authority is responsible for preparing the trunk road local plan and may also be co-ordinated with the same process, consulting on aspects of the priority route and side road measures. If the local authorities do not undertake it, there may also be inefficiency when the director or Minister undertakes his consultation separately. There is also the possibility that the director or Minister will not consult over local road plans.

In previous debates the Government made clear that they see the local authority as responsible for consulting local residents and businesses on red route schemes. When it comes to detailed plans that is neither fair nor effective. Individuals will want to have their say directly to a decision-maker. The timescale may not allow local authorities to undertake their own consultation period within that set by the director or Minister.

I believe that there are sound reasons for these two amendments. The wording is somewhat similar but they relate to two separate clauses and separate director's and Minister's plans for the trunk road schemes. I beg to move.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for expanding on this amendment.

The basic principle of Clauses 48 to 50, which deal with the preparation of local plans for priority routes, is that the local authorities should prepare plans for those priority routes for which they are the highway authority; and that the traffic director or the Secretary of State should prepare plans for those priority routes which are trunk roads, for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority.

In practice, it is likely that the Secretary of State will ask the traffic director to prepare most of these plans, which will cover around two-thirds of the network. The traffic director's new function will be to co-ordinate the introduction and maintenance of the priority route network. He will be well placed to prepare the local plans for these roads as a result of the experience and expertise he gains with the preparation of this network plan. I believe that this arrangement will provide the best opportunity for the early development of a consistent and coherent network. I do not believe the local authorities would be able to achieve the same results in the same time. They would not, for example, be able to bring the same concentration of effort as the traffic director to the development of the plans, because they have so many other highways responsibilities as well.

In the light of those remarks I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. However, I repeat that the traffic director will consult the local authorities fully and will seek to work with their co-operation.

Lord Underhill

I thank the Minister for that reply. At this time of the evening the best I can say is that I shall read carefully what he said and, with my advisers, decide whether or not to come back at Report stage. His answer sounds reasonable and satisfying but it still leaves the vital question of how the local authority will conduct its consultations. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [The Minister's trunk road local plans]:

[Amendments Nos. 98A to 100 not moved.]

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.

Clause 53 [Variation of local plans]:

[Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 not moved.]

Clause 53 agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.