| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 865
When I asked the Minister whether information that is publicly available could be used by an American litigation lawyer, I was making a serious point. At some stage, people will reach the conclusion that a reasonably competent engineer could look at the evidence and say that if any motor cycle manufacturer does not believe that serious leg injuries could be prevented by offering, at least as an option, leg protectors, he will expose himself to product liability risks that may have the same impact on motor cycles as the free-wheel, all-terrain vehicle product liability claim in the United States when, after the death of 1,000 young Americans, they were taken off the market. I hope that that message will get through to the corporate headquarters of every motor cycle manufacturer. I turn to some of the consistent work that is carried out by the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety. It was formed to ensure that the wearing of seat belts became the law of the land. Many of those who opposed the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the front seats of cars now realise that it has had a good impact and that it is worth extending the wearing of seat belts to children who sit in the rear seats of cars. PACTS provides the continuity that Minister and officials are unable to provide.I support nearly all the work that PACTS is doing. The only area of disagreement is not something that I wish to highlight today, but I ask again : where is the evidence that random breath testing, the purpose of which is to reduce the amount of drink driving, has been more successful than breath testing in a period when there was no random testing?
I am not arguing today against random breath testing, though one could say that there is no need for it. In my three and a half years as a Transport Minister, not a single motorist who was tested complained, for obvious reasons. The person who never drinks and drives regards himself as the innocent victim. Therefore, he is not interested in making a complaint. A person who is found to have consumed some alcohol, but who is below the legal limit says, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." The person who is above the legal limit says that he has been caught bang to rights. Almost by definition, it is unlikely that there will be any complaint about anyone having been tested. The only person who cannot legally be tested at the moment is the person whom the police believe has not been drinking, who has not committed a drink-driving offence and who has not been involved in a crash or collision. No extension of the law is needed.
To return to a question that I put to the British Medical Association, PACTS, James Dunbar and everyone else, because I am genuinely interested in obtaining the information : which country has reduced its drink driving faster, with random breath testing, than we have during an equivalent number of years? The hon. Member for Deptford may say that we have done very well up to now but that there is much more to do. There are still 840 deaths that have been proved to be related to drinking and driving. If that is what she wants to say, I accept it. I would try to carry out better surveys. That is what the Department of Transport and the Central Office of Information have been doing--I wish that the results had been better publicised by the media--by trying to monitor the amount of drink driving.
Column 866
For 20 years, Ministers ducked requests from researchers for random surveys of drink driving--similar to random breath testing but without prosecution. The popular press always greet that as an amnesty for drink-driving killers, but it is nothing of the sort. Such surveys have now been carried out for two or three years and the information that they provide is helpful.They show that at drink driving times--at pub closing time on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights--four out of five drivers have not been drinking, 49 out of 50 are below the legal limit, and 499 out of 500 are under twice the legal limit.
At the same time, the police are catching 1,000 people each week who have twice the legal limit or above and 1,000 people with between the legal limit and twice that amount. That shows that targeted testing is an effective way to catch serious offenders, and that near certain conviction and disqualification for those above the legal limit is an important part of our strategy.
We need to know how the figures change, and random surveys are an important means. We also need to know the number of occasions each week on which men drink and drive. In 1986, surveys showed that there were 2 million such occasions each week--that was probably a European low. However, 2 million occasions each week when people are between two and five times more likely to be involved in a crash, or to be injured, is far too many. The surveys show that within two and a half years that figure has come down to 600,000- -we cut two thirds off remaining drink driving, and in the years up to 1986 probably two thirds of drink driving had already stopped.
Apparently our approach had been working well. Figures which show that our death rate has fallen fastest, demonstrate that the alliance which included brewers, publicans and clubs has been important. Success depends upon reinforcing social attitudes.
We should pay tribute to brewers who have voluntarily developed better low alcohol and non-alcoholic beers, and have kept away from any association with motor racing--they are not allowed to associate alcohol with motor racing in advertisements on television. I must mention the brewers Courage, who did well to get the co-operation of so many car manufacturers to provide the advertisement, "Don't drink and drive" which is paid for. That is clear advice, it was brave of Courage, and it has not been done in other countries.
The first outside brewer to think that it had the good idea of associating alcohol with motor racing was Canadian. Shortly after sponsoring two cars in a series of races televised by the BBC, it decided to sponsor anti-drink driving, rather than its own name. I pay tribute to the way in which it realised where its long-term interests lay.
I deeply regret that the organisers of the British grand prix at Silverstone sold out to Foster's, and allowed it to put its name all over that grand prix--it was a mistake. Until now, it may not have been a commercial mistake, but I believe that it will become so apparent that it is wrong, that Foster's will withdraw. I ask it to do so.
If Foster's gets away with sponsoring motor racing, all the British brewers will abandon their voluntary agreement, and the Minister will rightly decide not to allow such sponsorship and to introduce regulations or law-- that is the last thing that should be tried. There should be a common understanding of the separation between alcohol and driving.
Column 867
I pay tribute to the people who are seldom recognised--local authority road safety officers. The Institute of Road Safety Officers, the County Surveyors Society and people in the metropolitan authorities and London boroughs deal every day with the consequences of the way in which people use the roads. They also deal with the consequences of inadequate sums of money being spent to ensure that through traffic is on through roads, and that local roads are preserved for residents, pedestrians and cyclists.In my time at the Northern Ireland Office, we managed to reduce the casualty rate by raising awareness of what people can do--primarily, by dealing with drink driving, but also by considering other road users. We were not able to spend much quickly on traffic calming--the mogadons for the motorist, to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
We need to continue to talk about what can be done by road engineers, which depends on analysis, and by vehicle manufacturers, which depends on the engineers. We need to go on representing people's interests, whether pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, car drivers or people on buses.
Most of all, we must provide opportunities for the media to continue to make sure that people realise what they can do--belt up their child in the back seat, make sure that anyone in the back of the car has a seat belt on, so that one does not have a "flying grannie", and be a host who provides only alcohol-free drinks to drivers.
We need that kind of social pressure so that people who intend to drive know that they are not expected to drink alcohol and possible passengers decline to get into a car when they know that the driver has been drinking. Drivers must decide in advance whether to drink or to drive.
The hon. Member for Deptford made an excellent speech. My hon. Friend the Minister put forward a good framework and strategy and made a speech which, I hope, will live on in the road casualty reduction debates in the House. We can tell how important this subject is when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says that the Government are not doing enough. Many people are fed up with the way in which the hon. Gentleman appears like an ambulance chaser at every kind of traffic disaster. His interests should be directed towards the 5,300 people a year who die on our roads, because their lives are important, their families matter and the subject is important.
2.11 pm
Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) : My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) delivered a long speech, but one of the most informative that I have heard. My one regret is that it was delivered to the House on a rather quiet Friday afternoon at around 2 o'clock, rather than to a busier House at 9 o'clock in the evening because many hon. Members would have listened to his speech with great interest.
I hesitate to arbitrate between my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) about the depth of tyre grooves. If any of my constituents are hauled before the courts on a tyre charge, I will refer them to my hon. Friends for advice before they appear before the magistrates. I was particularly interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said about casualties among foot
Column 868
travellers. Seventeen years ago I had the misfortune to knock down a five-year-old with my car and I still vividly recall the sickening thud on the nearside as the child hit the vehicle. I wholeheartedly concur with all that my hon. Friend said about making vehicles more pedestrian friendly. Fortunately, that accident occurred at the quiet time of 5 pm on a housing estate. I was driving a new car. The child saw its mother coming across a field from a bus and ran out to meet her. I am relieved to say that the child survived. The accident was witnessed by about 20 people and obviously we were all distressed about it, not least the mother, who saw the accident take place. Fortunately, for the child and for me, the car was less than a month old, so its brakes and tyres were shipshape. Because the accident occurred at 5 clock in the afternoon, there was no question of drink driving being involved--nor, I hope, would there ever be. It brought home to me the fact that one must always be ready for the unexpected. Whatever regulations the House may make, whatever advertisements may appear on television, the fact is that that child ran out into the road on seeing its mother. My father insisted that I get back into the car and drive it immediately, which was probably one of the more sensible things that he did as I doubt whether I would otherwise have driven again after such a hideous experience.For many people in this place, this has been a week in which personal ambitions have been paraded at some depth. The question has been whether to hang on to change or to go. My personal ambition is not political ; I should like to make sure that I do not outlive my wife and children, as there can be nothing worse than trying to come to terms with losing a child by whatever means.
I very much welcome the use of Government expenditure on television advertising, not necessarily for more partisan subjects such as shares and the denationalisation of companies, but for road safety and I hope that the Opposition will never criticise that expenditure. Many hon. Members will have seen the current advertisement showing an empty school room to point out how many children would have been there if accidents had not occurred. I hope to see many more such advertisements as we cannot promote that line often enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) successfully introduced a Bill making it compulsory for children to wear seat belts and that measure has achieved a great deal. However, as a father of three, I find that every time we get into the car there is an argument about the need to belt up. Fortunately, the eight-year-old is wholly convinced about it, but we have to watch the five-year-old like a hawk as he will always try to get away without wearing a seat belt. There is a place for regulation in these matters, but we also need more advertisements aimed not only at parents but at children, to help them understand the effect of the impact, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham referred, if they are in an accident and go through the windscreen of the car. Children must be encouraged to understand the facts so that we do not have perpetual arguments between parents and children about whether to belt up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham talked in considerable detail about motor cycles. I have mixed feelings on the matter. We should try to make them as safe as possible, but I know what I will do with my three children when they reach an age when they may be tempted to ride on the back of a motor cycle. When I was
Column 869
so tempted once in my life, it was arranged that I visit a police pathology lab. I have taken up this idea with my local police to see whether they can extend the facility to any constituent who asks for it. I shall never forget seeing, at the age of 14, a helmet with a head in it. It was, thank God, a photograph, but the range of photographic evidence taken from the most horrifying road accidents involving motor cycles cured me from that age onwards. Not only did I never want a motor cycle, but I could never be persuaded to go on the back of one. Although it was a gruesome lesson I fully intend to make my own children go through it. One cannot merely lecture children about the dangers of motor cycles--one must show them the dangers in graphic and gruesome but no doubt memorable ways. The experience had an effect on me and I wish that more of my constituents could encourage their children to see the appalling effects of motor cycle accidents in particular.I wish to nag my hon. Friend the Minister about some constituency points. He and his officials have been patient about these matters to date, but that does not mean that I intend to stop pursuing them. The M54 runs from the M6 to mid-Wales, through my constituency, and will eventually be extended from Telford. It has been a long campaign, although that has not been the fault of the Government or of the local authority, which is controlled by a Labour-Liberal alliance, so in that sense the delay has not been the fault of any political party. It was the fault of a couple of constituents who were unhappy with the compensation arrangements and who therefore fought the issue through the courts time and again. The extension is to go ahead now, and I welcome that because it will make a huge difference to road safety on the A5. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will know, there have been unnecessarily appalling crashes there in the past.
The present interchange between the A5 and the A49, which will soon be crossed by the M54 extension near the village of Baystonhill, is not acceptable, it will not solve any problems and it will lead to greater frustration and, consequently, to appalling driving. In the interests of road safety, that interchange must be extended. We can be proud of the Government's record on road safety, but we know that there is still much to be done. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that road safety education is aimed not only at adults, but at children.
2.19 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) suggested that cyclists break the law because the streets are congested. That does not explain why they go through red traffic lights or ride without front or rear lights. May I ask the Minister to do something about that? He puts out excellent press releases about cycle routes, which I support, but I should like him to say bluntly to cyclists that this behaviour will no longer do.
I should also like my hon. Friend to talk to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard and ask that, on a couple of days a week, the police do as they quite rightly do with bus lanes, which is to monitor the situation and pull people in. If they go through the streets of central London any day, they will find 50 pedal cyclists--many of them courier service cyclists--cycling the wrong way up
Column 870
one-way streets. That has nothing to do with traffic congestion. I hope that my hon. Friend will do something active about that because that will do far more to cut down road deaths than bringing in the nanny state and saying, "Not one drink before you drive."2.20 pm
Ms. Ruddock : Time is against us and I, too, must be brief. We have had a good debate and there is much common ground--notably on the question of speed. Everyone has deplored the advertising of cars capable of high speeds and the Minister has a clear mandate from the House to consider further the question of speed limits--especially for certain kinds of vehicles and in certain circumstances. I hope that he will come to the House with further proposals if he cannot respond this afternoon.
I regret that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) ruined what would otherwise have been an excellent speech by making some unwarranted remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is somewhere very important and who was present for our previous debate. We argue not that Britain would be in a better position if we had adopted random breath testing already but that it is possible--we believe that there is evidence to support this view--that if we now adopted it, we could achieve a further reduction in casualties due to drink-driving which could not be achieved by any other means.
We welcome the Minister's proposals on the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts. I do not think that anyone who has rear seat belts fitted in his car will any longer hesitate to use them having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) give such a dramatic description of what happens to those sitting in the back of a vehicle if they are unsecured when a collision occurs. There are many points to which I should have liked to refer, although many of them are simple questions on which the Minister can respond positively. There is, however, a matter on which I fear he may not respond so positively, so let me cover some of the ground again. I refer specifically to the question of small engineering works and traffic- calming methods, which many of us believe to be essential if we are to reach the Government's target for reducing road casualties. I cite in my defence the advice of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which has been mentioned many times :
"PACTS believes that the implementation of local safety engineering schemes at single sites or on an area-wide basis is one of the most important routes to securing the Government's casualty reduction targets."
I remind the Minister that 95 per cent. of pedestrian casualties occur in urban areas, and that it is pedestrian and child casualties that now give us the greatest cause for concern. Per 100,000 of the population, Britain has twice the pedestrian death rate of the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden. The debate has highlighted the pressing need to prioritise work on that problem. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his description of the parking and congestion problems in his constituency. Perhaps my hon. Friend and his constituents are being denied a solution because of the intransigence of Wandsworth borough council. In my local authority in Lewisham, there is no doubt about the means and mechanisms by which we can deal with our local problems. We have been petitioned by hundreds of
Column 871
residents who have the expertise of the council to tell them precisely what kind of traffic-calming measures are required to improve local safety on the roads to which I referred earlier. I cannot stress too much the importance that we attach to those measures to improve safety and the quality of life of our residents. The Department of Transport estimates that there is potential for at least 200 to 300 lives to be saved and around 15,000 injuries to be prevented if more local safety engineering schemes were implemented. That would be no small contribution to the targets that the Government have set themselves, and which we support. Such schemes are essential, and I urge the Minister to respond positively to our demands and assure us that Lewisham, Wandsworth and every other district that wishes to increase local safety through local engineering works will not be held back because of lack of Government support and finance.2.25 pm
Mr. Chope : Many of us have spent the best part of five hours in the Chamber during this debate and I cannot imagine five more worthwhile hours that I have spent here. We have had a high quality debate, and I pay tribute to all the participants.
I want to respond in particular to concerns expressed by three of my hon. Friends about the tragic accident on the M42. My hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) have taken a deep interest in that accident. They were right to do so and that is consistent with the conscientious way in which they look after their constituents.
I must express regret at the accident and offer my sympathy to the families of those who have been bereaved. Obviously, I cannot discuss the cause of the accident as that is still under investigation by the police. However, I can confirm that the Department of Transport at the time of the accident already had, and still has, substantial proposals in hand for short-term and long-term improvements to the M42, as well as for the M5 and M6, around the west midlands conurbation and specifically at junction 6 of the M42.
Much comment has been made about the need for good communications. Contracts have already been let for fibre-optic cabling, improved monitors and additional cameras to provide comprehensive coverage of that part of the network by closed circuit television. The new cabling will also enable the matrix signalling and telephones to be upgraded and we are currently out to tender for the installation of new matrix signals and telephones and for the electronic equipment associated with those works.
We also have plans for sets of variable message signs at approaches to junction 6 of the M42 on both southbound and northbound carriageways to enable the central
Column 872
motorway police group to advise motorists of queues at the junction. Our agents have already been instructed to provide a dedicated left turn westbound on the A45 from the northbound off slip from the M42. Together with existing traffic signals at the top of that slip road activated by queue detectors, that should significantly reduce the problems of queueing on the northbound slip road at junction 6. Improved television surveillance of junction 6 will be in place within 12 months. I know that my hon. Friends would like that to happen even sooner, but it takes time to install. The complete modernisation of the communications network for that stretch of the M42 and the M5 and the M6 around the conurbation and the dedicated slip road should be operational within two years. That is an example of the kind of investment that the Government are making in road safety. These processes were not prompted by the accident but were in hand already.I cannot respond to all the speeches to this debate in the short time remaining to me, but I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). I intend to announce later this month or early next month the allocation of transport supplementary grant for the coming year. The hon. Lady probably already knows that it will be 17 per cent. higher than in the current year. I can assure her that she and everyone who wants more investment in local road safety schemes will be pleased with the outcome. My former borough of Wandsworth is one of the leaders in implementing good local road safety schemes. I am sure that, with the extra money that it will get, it will be able to go some way to meeting the points made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) raised a couple of detailed points. As he is present, I shall do my best to respond to one of them, and I shall write to him about the other. He referred to the reversing of lorries and the need for them to sound an audible signal. The construction and use regulations permit such devices to be fitted to all heavy goods vehicles over two tonnes. The statistics to which my hon. Friend referred were on accidents on building sites. He may like to know that the Health and Safety Executive recommends the use of reversing bleepers. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), in a superb speech, drew attention to the role of the media in our road safety campaigns. I hope that tomorrow many newspapers and television programmes will draw attention to a photograph which shows exactly what happens when a car is involved in a 30-mph collision and the way in which people sitting in the back of the vehicle are catapulted forward with tremendous adverse consequences for themselves and for the people sitting in the front.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Column 873
Government Planning Policies
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) : Having been lucky enough to win the ballot after some months of trying, I wish to raise an issue affecting part of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). I refer to a problem which affects Kilburn high road and the streets running off it. At the end of what has been a fairly heavily political week, this is certainly not a matter of party politics and I doubt whether my hon. Friend and I will disagree about it. Certainly, the three parties on Brent council, which is a hung council, recognise that there is a major problem, and the council has recently introduced a byelaw to prevent drinking in the streets. However, I think that the real problem will be that people will cross Kilburn high road and go to my hon. Friend's constituency and continue to drink themselves silly there.
I shall begin by pointing out some appalling consequences that afflict the area and drawing on my views and the views of local residents which have been reported in the Kilburn Times, one of the papers that serve the local area. I shall refer to comments by people in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. The major force behind the drive to try to resolve the problem has been the local residents association, which has taken up the issue, and the Brondesbury community association, which has corresponded with the Department of the Environment. Sheila Shannon, speaking on behalf of the Brondesbury community association, told the Kilburn Times that "Kilburn is looking seedier and seedier. It's become a mecca for the hard drinkers of north west London."
In the constituency of my hon. Friend, June Perrin, chair of the Kilburn area general improvement committee, said :
"There are just too many drinking establishments in the area. The Camden side is quite bad, but in Brent they seem to hand out drink licences like toffees.
In the past year, a vet's surgery on Willesden Lane and a gas showroom on Kilburn High Road have become pubs. This area needs more amenities for the locals, not more boozers."
Mr. Lawrence Morris, the chair of the Kilburn advisory committee--once again, broadly based in my hon. Friend's constituency--has called for the establishment of a joint working party between Camden and Brent to try to combat the problems. One striking statement was by Mr. John Alexander, who runs a photo shop in Willesden lane. He describes how he has watched the number of pubs, restaurants and off-licences in the area soar and the numbers of drunks and alcoholics become an increasingly common sight in doorways. The paper states :
" You can obtain drink on Willesden Lane 24 hours a day', Mr. Alexander said. Willesden Lane is 600 yards long. There are 13 drink outlets on the stretch ; three are pubs, five restaurants and five off licences. One of them, a wholesalers, is open 18 hours a day and keeps its doors open all night.
There was a man stabbed to death outside the shop in a drunken brawl. I had my window smashed in and the doorway used to stink of urine all the time.'
Other shopkeepers and residents along Willesden Lane express grave misgivings about the advent of a late night dance and drink licence for the old Odeon cinema."
One local resident is quoted as saying :
"On Friday and Saturday nights I don't get to sleep until four o'clock in the morning if I'm lucky. If the cinema gets a licence as well its going to be much, much worse."
Column 874
Those are the comments of people of all political persuasions. I imagine that most people in London, including most Ministers, are used to driving along Kilburn high road to get to the A1 or M1, but that they seldom get off that road and experience local conditions. Although as one drives along that road, the area may appear devoid of residents, comprising only shops and pubs, immediately behind both sides of Kilburn high road there are family and residential communities. The area is incredibly densely populated. Parking is a monstrous problem. I used to live in the immediate area, in Kingsgate road which is off Quex road where it is virtually impossible to find a parking space at any time of the day. That is true all the time for both sides of Kilburn high road.People are now attracted to what is regarded as the place in north London where one can drink for virtually 24 hours a day. People from all over north-west London are being drawn in and are concentrating in this area, which already has tremendous problems.
Many of the people who have been released from psychiatric hospitals into the so-called "care in the community" have ended up as derelicts, basically living on Kilburn high road and trying to get money from local passers-by so that they can buy their next drink. I have not seen anywhere in Britain where there is the same concentration of down-and-outs and derelicts in such a small area and on a major highway.
Another problem that has aggravated the state of affairs in that area is that many local traders have opted not to have the local authority collect their rubbish, but have failed to substitute for that by paying for their own rubbish collection. Some of the less reputable local businesses dump their shop rubbish on to the street. Once again, it is picked over by the down-and-outs and ends up being strewn throughout the area.
I have known the area since I was first selected to contest the Hampstead and Highgate constituency--nearly 15 years ago. It is visibly deteriorating much more sharply than almost anywhere else in the capital. That is one reason why I voted against the measures that were introduced a couple of years ago to liberalise Britain's drinking laws. It was not because I am a reactionary, but because I feared their impact on the area. Those fears have been proved well founded.
Another problem that has to be seen to be believed is the spin-off effect. Parking and congestion are absolutely monstrous. If I want to get from one end of Kilburn high road to the other, it is easier to get off the bus and walk the length of it, and then to catch up with the same bus half an hour later further down the road.
The time has come for everybody to say that something needs to be done. I am the first to accept that this is probably a purely local problem, which is not repeated on a similar scale anywhere else in the capital, and perhaps nowhere else in Britain. Introducing legislation will not, therefore, be an immediate priority for anybody, but there are things that we can do. The Brondesbury community association--which has the happy acronym of BRAT--wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment pointing out the problems and stressing that even at the time of writing-- this was back in the summer--there were outstanding applications to change the use of a whole range of properties. Number 167 to 173 Kilburn high road, which had previously provided furniture and carpeting for local residents, was subject to a planning application to
Column 875
change its use into a wine bar. Number 229 Kilburn high road had previously been a cafe and restaurant, but had reopened as a pub, having gained planning permission for an enormous extension at the back, which brought it to within 8 ft of residential premises. The owners had applied for a music and dancing licence until 1 o'clock in the morning--not just once or twice a week, but every night. The major concern in the area is that the Willesden lane cinema, which has now closed, will be turned into a dance hall. It is situated on an extremely busy, dangerous and congested major traffic junction. In the letter to the Department of the Environment, the community association expressed the two key points on which I wish to focus. One was that two years ago there was a change in the way in which these matters were dealt with. The letter states :"Since the Use Class Order (A3) was changed some 2 years ago by the Secretary of State for the Environment, planning permission for take-aways, restaurants, wine bars and public houses are now all placed in the same category. The knock-on effect of this is that premises which are currently treated as take-aways can, overnight, turn into a pub--provided they can obtain a liquor licence." I know that for some time there has been a dispute between the parties about the severity of planning regulations, and that the Government have won three elections while being committed to trying to do what they can about changing planning legislation to encourage the maximum development of economic activity. I do not think that the impact on Kilburn could have been foreseen when the change was made, and I hope that we can reconsider the matter.
The second problem is not within the remit of the Department of the Environment, but I am sure that that Department is in contact with the Home Office. It is the question of the liquor licensing authority. Licensing in Brent seems to be substantially more liberal than in other areas and does not take account of the area's needs. There already seems to be an oversaturation of drinking premises, but that does not seem to be taken by the licensing authority as an argument against opening more.
In a generally helpful and positive reply to the assocation, Tony Blake of the development control policy division raised two or three points with which I take issue. His letter states :
"Development control decisions should not, however, take account of possible antisocial or criminal behaviour of customers or visitors to a particular development."
In a general sense, one agrees with that, but that bold approach places an impossible social pressure on a small and densely populated residential area.
In certain cases I should like to see the Government giving guidance in a circular to say that such considerations could be made in the application of development control. The letter continued : "Such considerations can nevertheless be taken into account in the content of an application for a liquor licence, ... You also express concern at the greater flexibility offered to premises providing food and drink to the public by the A3 class of the Use Classes Order 1987. This class reflects trends in the modern catering trade, where many establishments (particularly fast food' outlets) combine restaurant and take-away facilities. It enables the catering trade to adapt to changing demands with greater certainty, in premises where the environmental nuisances such as smell, traffic and parking have already been accepted."
I make it quite clear that those things have never been accepted. They are getting worse and are now becoming intolerable and a health hazard.
My final point at issue is where the letter states :
Column 876
"Changes of use from retail use to food and drink use remain subject to planning control, and it is open to local authorities to restrict such changes of use in more than a certain proportion of premises in a shopping area However, the question whether any particular non-retail use is already sufficiently represented in any shopping area is a matter of commercial judgment and will not be material to a planning application."That is wrong. A few years ago there was a bipartisan approach in London when Lady Porter of Westminster council and I, together with the London boroughs, supported a change in the law about sex shops. I doubt whether Lady Porter and I could find a single nice thing to say about each other in any circumstances, but we recognised that the growth of sex shops in Westminster was completely destroying the social fabric of the area. After pressure, legislation was passed which said that that could be a consideration and there has been a dramatic decline. We must not say simply because profits can be made that a permanent alcoholic watering hole in Kilburn which serves the whole of north-west London and which the market can sustain, should be allowed to continue. I ask the Minister to consider these positive changes.
There are two other changes that have been well thought out by Gwen Molloy, who was a member of the licensing authority for some years. She has suggested that those who serve on the licensing authority and determine whether liquor licences should be granted should be drawn from the area for which they are dealing. In Brent, only four of the 20 members of the licensing authority live in the area. It is important that those who serve upon it should know and understand the problems of the area.
Gwen Molloy has suggested also that the licensing authority should consider the overall needs of the area, which means that individual licences should not be judged in isolation. It would be useful if the Government suggested that such consideration should take place in a circular or in a note of guidance to licensing authorities. This is not a party issue. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate will be taking part in the debate. I hope that, following the debate the Government, local authorities and the local Members can meet to ascertain precisely what can be done to tackle a terrible problem.
2.45 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : I should make it clear for both our sakes that, while the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I are friends, we are not, in the terms of the House, hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman might face more danger than I if others thought that he and I were political friends.
I agree strongly with almost everything that the hon. Member for Brent, East says. As a result of the conditions that he has described, the entire area becomes sleazy, a situation contributed to on the Camden side by the most appalling failure of the Camden authorities to clear street refuse quickly enough. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued a direction to Camden to re-tender the system as it is clearly in total collapse. I can understand traders who want to keep a fairly clean ship, as it were, asking private collectors to clear the rubbish because the authority will not clear it, but that is a sad state of affairs.
The Order Paper tells us that the debate is about "planning policies". An extra problem in Camden--I do not know whether it applies to Brent, and it may not--is
Column 877
a bad failure to deal with enforcement. It takes months to persuade the authority to follow anything up. The plea may be shortage of legal staff, but that can be easily overcome by giving a straightforward job to an outside firm of solicitors. Local residents are becoming very unhappy at the way in which people flout existing planning laws. They go ahead and hope that they will not be found out. If they are found out, it takes months to get the matter on the agenda of the planning committee and months follow thereafter before any action is taken.I give broad support to what has been said by the hon. Member for Brent, East. I suppose that another reason why Ministers and members of the shadow Cabinet travel along Kilburn high street is that they do not wish to see the very large poster outside my headquarters stating that I am there to give advice which they would see if they used the Finchley road.
2.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Atkins) rose --
Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North) : Hear, hear.
Mr. Atkins : Such support gives me further strength to congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East, (Mr. Livingstone) on winning a place in the ballot and securing the opportunity to raise what I recognise, from the manner in which he has addressed the subject, is a matter of considerable concern to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). Although the hon. Gentleman has not been a Member of this place for as long as my hon. Friend, I know that in his former incarnation he was familiar with Brent. I know also that he speaks with great authority on these matters. I am impressed by what he has to say.
The town and country planning system exists to reconcile the need for essential development with the need to protect the amenity of a locality in the public interest. The relevant legislation requires those who determine development proposals to do so having regard to the local development plan and any other material planning considerations.
Such considerations are likely to include the appearance of the proposed development, its siting--especially its likely impact on neighbouring residential development, schools and hospitals--traffic generation, parking requirements, noise and disturbance. It would not be proper, however, for planning decisions about lawful forms of development to take into account the possibility that customers or visitors to a particular development might behave in an anti-social or criminal manner.
The planning system recognises that the use of premises for food-and-drink type activities can give rise to particular problems. That is why planning permission has to be obtained before such uses are introduced into premises which have not been used previously for that purpose. It provides a mechanism for controlling the overall number of food and drink outlets in a particular area, but once a planning permission has been granted for such a use the precise nature of the outlet should be a matter for commercial judgment. Since 1987 the use classes order has included a food and drink use class--class A3--which covers restaurants,
Column 878
cafes, wine bars, public houses, take-aways and other premises used for the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises or of hot food for consumption of the premises. The inclusion of a food and drink class reflects trends in the modern catering industry, where many of the traditional boundaries between different types of premises have broken down, for example, in fast-food outlets and pubs encouraging use by families. It enables the catering trade to adapt to changing demands with greater certainty, in premises where the environmental nuisances, such as smell, traffic and parking, have already been accepted. If the order took into account all the potential differences between broadly similar uses, it would become so detailed as to be of little practical value.Despite what I have just said, however, we acknowledge the need to assess the overall impact of the Use Classes Order 1987 now that it has been in force for over three years. Accordingly, early this year my Department commissioned independent research into the effects of the changes which were made to the order in 1987. Amongst other things, this research will cover the impact on amenity and the environment of the food and drink use class. I expect to receive shortly the report of the research contractors.
In summary, from the perspective of land use planning, the impact on local amenity and the environment of changes of use within a particular use class is designed to be neutral. However, there are other considerations to be taken into account. The land use planning system should not seek to secure objectives available under other legislation. For example, the likelihood of any anti-social behaviour arising from the opening of a public house should properly be considered under licensing rather than under planning control. Naturally, it is for the police to take steps to prevent or curtail unlawful activities. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the law as it relates to the granting of liquor licences is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
A local resident concerned about noise and disturbance caused by late-night entertainment can ask the local authority to attach a condition to the entertainment licence imposing an earlier closing time. Alternatively, under the Licensing Act 1964, a resident could oppose the renewal of a liquor licence or apply for its revocation at any licensing session. The hon. Gentleman's points about licences in Brent, as he well understands, are for the legal side of the Government rather than for me. The thought of having to consider an adjustment to the magistracy daunts me, so I am more than happy to leave it to other Ministers.
Greater regulation of licensed premises through the planning system would not necessarily resolve the type of problems which the hon . Gentleman has raised. As one who at the time was impressed by the need to reform the licensing laws, I take issue with him on the philosophy behind that. However, I understand only too well his concerns. Arguably, it is preferable for people wishing to enjoy a drink to have a wide choice of venue ; overcrowded conditions in a limited number of outlets may well give rise to an overflow of customers on to the streets which might produce a different set of problems.
The planning system must play a positive role by facilitating where possible the provision of facilities in response to demand, as well as preventing development in particular locations where, on the basis of land use planning criteria, it is clearly inappropriate.
| Next Section
| Home Page |