House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Dec 1990

Mr. Conal Gregory (York) : I warmly welcome the Bill. It is high time that we enshrined into law the North report and I am pleased that a new offence of dangerous driving will replace that of reckless driving. It is also good to put on the statute book the new offence of causing death through careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. A number of other new offences, including the punishment of vandals who put road users at risk, are also welcome. I want to concentrate on random breath testing, already referred to by many colleagues, and the greater safety of those on the road as they approach school.

The chilling statistic before the House is that, over the Christmas period, 750 people will die or be injured on our roads as a result of drink. That is a stark statistic that can only be welcome to the undertakers. I do not want to return to the House for another Christmas without acting upon that. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has moved from the vastness of Scotland to transport and its associated issues and I hope that he takes into account the need for random breath testing. I am surprised that it is not included in the Bill--perhaps that was a drafting error. If my right hon. and learned Friend accepts the mood of the House, that proposal will be included.

In 1988, one in six road deaths in Britain occurred in an accident where drink-driving was involved. In the same year, 840 people were killed and 22,000 injured on the roads and drink-driving was a factor in those accidents. If the average fine is £180 only, it is not surprising that many drivers, particularly youngsters with high disposable incomes, are prepared to take a risk. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has already referred to the sad cases where people were prepared to take such a risk. The victims of those accidents are unable to bear witness to their survival--they are history.

Random breath testing is used in some countries, including Australia, where the police have the power to set up road blocks and to breathalyse all or a fixed sample of

Column 781

those passing through. I understand that in New South Wales, fatal road accidents have fallen by 28 per cent. since that procedure was introduced.

When my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic winds up, will he say whether, during the Bill's passage, there can be an experiment in west, north and south Yorkshire and Humberside over the next few months to see whether random breath testing would have a major effect? To his great credit, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire has taken the matter on board, but his lead has not been followed by the other chief constables. The effectiveness of such a measure could be tested while this legislation passes through the House and the other place.

Leaving on one side the important matter of random breath testing, I refer to another great issue, the safety of our young people on the roads as they go to and from school. I praise the recently launched campaign of the Yorkshire Evening Press for safer roads. During the Bill's passage we should consider the possibility of having white lines across the road, with the spaces between them diminishing the nearer they come to a school. Secondly, we should have clearer warning notices starting about a quarter of a mile before a school, in addition to the current signs that are sited close to a school entrance, possibly with flashing lights as well. I understand from the county surveyor of North Yorkshire county council that it is not within his present powers to implement such proposals--he would need a statute or the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State before he could make such moves.

Thirdly, we could have speed humps on the road as a school entrance is approached. That, above all, would stop the speedy driver as he moves towards a school entrance. Only in that way will we substantially reduce the tragic deaths and accidents that take place around schools.

Those are three practical measures that should be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that they would have all-party support. There is no question of delay. If he gives even a hint of the possibility of such experimentation, he will be the parliamentary saviour of this Christmas.

12.3 am

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : I have listened to every minute of the debate, particularly all the arguments surrounding random breath testing and, setting aside the obvious strength of feeling that has come through, three clear facts have become apparent. First, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, police already have wide powers. Secondly, the police do not use those powers often and, when they do, they do not use them in a uniform fashion. Thirdly, the public are unaware of those powers. Whatever the outcome of the Secretary of State's deliberations, I ask him to tell the House tonight, or as soon as possible, that the powers that the police already have will be used. Will he ask the Home Secretary to ask the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that procedures are standardised so that there is a uniform pattern nationwide? Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek to use all his powers to ensure that the public understand the powers that the police already have? Those

Column 782

three steps can be taken in time to save lives this Christmas, irrespective of any other legislation that may be passed. I hope that this will not become the "Random Breath Test Bill", not because that subject is not important or worthy of debate, but because there is so much else that is important. I applaud all the measures contained in part I of the Bill and simply ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider two further matters of amendment. First, there was a time when the uninsured driver was liable to a custodial sentence which was abolished in the belief that imprisonment was a draconian measure for an uninsured driver. At that time, that decision was probably correct. However, the result of that decision has been to prevent magistrates from using the community service sentence--itself dependent on a custodial sentence--against uninsured drivers. That is a source of considerable concern, and sometimes of hardship, to the victims of the uninsured. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend carefully to consider reintroducing that penalty. Only in extreme cases would imprisonment be used, but it would also open up to magistrates other avenues of punishment. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also consider imposing more severe fines for failing to register vehicles. It is clear that the courts often have difficulty in identifying vehicle ownership, and that in itself causes problems.

Part III does not yet exist, but I hope that it will by the time that the Bill has completed its Committee stage. Part II lays great emphasis on traffic management in London and I should like to see the Bill lay equal emphasis on traffic management outside London. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and I will shortly be approaching my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in connection with improvements to the A253, which serves both Kent international airport and Fort Ramsgate. The A253 and other roads like it are important, because the heart of the county of Kent is being torn out by heavy lorries using as rat runs roads through rural villages that are not suited to them. The villages are being destroyed, and I urge my right hon. and learned Friend carefully to examine the general powers that already apply to London traffic to see whether they could apply to rural villages. It is possible, for example, to introduce sleeping policemen and highway-narrowing schemes to side roads but not to through roads. I ask only of my right hon. and learned Friend that he examines those existing powers, to ascertain whether any of them can be included in the Bill, to help preserve our rural villages from being destroyed.

12.6 am

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : I am very glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his place at this late hour. The general powers in the Bill that he has inherited are very welcome, and it is right that the media have devoted considerable attention to changes to deal with drink-driving, which remains a scourge that demands our attention wherever effective measures can be devised to combat it.

The North report drew attention to the difficulty of proving reckless driving, and it is proper to replace the existing offence by that of dangerous driving and of causing death through careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. There is widespread public

Column 783

belief that those who have caused death through careless driving when unfit to drive have been dealt with too leniently. The law should rightly be concerned with the consequences of people's actions as well as the circumstances leading to the commission of the offence.

The Government have struck the right balance in respect of measures to deter drink-driving. Those who make their priority the introduction of random testing and greater police powers rarely seem to consider that the most effective change--that in public attitudes--has been implemented without any such measures. Drink driving is the biggest single cause of road accidents, but due partly to the Government's approach and to other factors, the number of people driving after drinking has almost halved in the past 10 years, with a commensurate reduction in associated casualties. That it is now regarded as much more socially acceptable for drivers not to take alcohol, and to respond when asked to have another drink, "No thank you, I'm driving," is a dramatic and welcome change by any standard.

Some hon. Members have cited the New South Wales example, where random testing is claimed to have reduced drink-driving by 30 per cent.--but with the voluntary assistance of brewers and others, Britain has achieved a much more radical result. It is futile to imagine that random testing could have the same effect in this country, where--thanks to an alternative, and more successful, approach--we have achieved better results.

In 1978, 42 per cent. of breath tests were positive, but by 1989 the figure had fallen to 18 per cent. That difference is only partly accounted for by the much larger number of tests now made. Random tests are much less productive than the targeted tests carried out at present. Those who continually call for random tests run the risk of signalling to potential drink-drivers that they are unlikely to be stopped and tested when the message should be just the opposite. Certainly, new technology can deter bad driving, but we should be cautious about legislative changes of the kind proposed. Although I fully support them, it is also worth bearing in mind that, where automatic cameras are used, it will not usually be possible to apprehend the driver responsible for the alleged offence immediately. Under the provisions of the Bill, the company which owns the vehicle may be liable if it does not provide information as to the driver of the vehicle at the time the alleged offence was committed. There is concern about the use of photography. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), while welcoming the Government's White Paper, said that

"the further extension, through the use of cameras of the principle that a motorist or a keeper of a motor vehicle can be found guilty of an offence without the same burden of proof that would be required to find him guilty of any other form of offence is becoming a little worrying".--[ Official Report, 7 February 1989 ; Vol. 146, column 804.]

In response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the then Secretary of State, agreed that there was bound to be controversy and said that the House would wish to debate the matter at length. I believe that that should be the case. Sending photographs of an individual to that person's employer, or to the keeper of the car, who may be the

Column 784

person's husband or wife, carries more general risks to civil liberty. The fact that an individual can be shown to have been at a particular location at a particular time, perhaps accompanied by persons whose identity he or she would wish to keep private, should not be the concern of an agency of the state. Rightly or wrongly, some people will view such devices as spy cameras. We should be a little cautious before we agree that they can be used on a widespread basis, because their impact may be more broadly felt than we imagine. The objective of reducing casualties by improving the standard of driving, which is a good one, may not always justify the means. The Government have given signs that they are sympathetic to some of the provisions in the Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill, which I brought forward in the last Session with the support of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and the Automobile Association. Most accidents are caused by bad driving, but the use of unroadworthy vehicles by bad drivers can be a fatal combination. Indeed, in some cases innocent purchasers of second-hand cars may unwittingly find themselves in possession of a lethal weapon. I hope that the Government will look favourably upon amendments to make the lives of second-hand car cowboys more unpleasant by strengthening the hand of those who seek to protect purchasers.

I greatly welcome the tougher vehicle test recently announced by the Government, which will cover exhaust emissions, thus bringing considerable environmental benefits. I am glad that that represents no threat to classic cars--a matter of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight)--and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State may be able to reassure him on that.

The Bill is an important measure. For the first time in my 11 years in the House, a major Bill has been devoted solely to road traffic. It will provide a valuable opportunity to debate issues which may literally be matters of life and death. I hope that that opportunity will be put to good use.

12.13 am

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) : I join in the welcome to the new Secretary of State. I am delighted that he is still in the House at almost quarter past midnight. I hope that the reform of the House, which many hon. Members are pressing for, will soon make it unnecessary for him, or for any of us, to be here at this ungodly hour.

The debate has been wide ranging. Part I of the Bill has received widespread support for its inclusions, and a fair measure of criticism for its omissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) explained the extent of the Opposition's support for the Bill and the additions that we shall press for in Committee.

The compelling arguments for measures to improve road safety were well rehearsed in our debates on 16 November and I do not need to reiterate them now. It is the fervent hope of all hon. Members that the new measures will reduce the appalling toll of accidents on our roads.

Today, as on every other day, we can expect about 15 people to have lost their lives and 170 to have been seriously injured. In due course--as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) so graphically pointed out--the families of some of those killed will suffer further grief and anger on finding that the drivers

Column 785

responsible have received inappropriately light sentences. The creation of offences of careless and dangerous driving, and of attendant penalties, will be widely welcomed, although we shall want to examine very closely the details of the cases raised by my hon. Friend and consider whether it is impossible to strengthen the Bill further in the way that he proposed.

We are, in any event, anxious about the effectiveness of the provisions applying to the new offences if more is not done to alter driver behaviour. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) argued in his powerful speech, increased penalties alone are not certain to have a positive effect. He and we have suggested that the introduction of random testing would act as a further deterrent to drink-driving. Whatever the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) may say about the progress made to date--and we all commend everyone involved in that progress--there is room for further improvement ; that is why we advocate standardised random testing. Furthermore, we believe that the introduction of such testing could have a wider impact on driver behaviour and would serve as a useful complement to the new offences proposed in the Bill.

We shall continue to urge the Government to introduce random testing, and will of course explore the matter further in Committee. If the new broom-- the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)-- is looking for a popular cause, he need look no further : as his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is joint chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, reminded him tonight, the report by the transport and road research laboratory found that 77 per cent. of those interviewed supported random breath testing.

As we have heard repeatedly tonight, the Bill consists of two distinct parts, and it falls to me to deal with part II. Like the New Roads and Street Works Bill introduced in the other place, this Bill is a combination of long-overdue and sensible measures--dealing, in this case, with road safety--and some half-baked ideas advanced by Ministers who lack the courage to accept the need for strategic transport planning.

We regard it as mischievous of the Government to tack on to the relatively uncontentious and important part I their extremely controversial plans for London. So anxious are they to be seen doing something in London that they are starting the red routes pilot project on 7 January, before we have had any opportunity to explore the proposals in Committee. Indecent haste has been the hallmark of their proposals.

Just a year ago, the Department of Transport told local authorities that it foresaw

"few benefits and many difficulties"

resulting from the red routes, yet six weeks later the proposal was published in "Traffic in London". Today, the Secretary of State argued that red routes would transform London's appalling traffic problem. The principal rationale is the need to get traffic moving more freely--a worthwhile objective in itself, but one which cannot be advanced without a critical analysis of all the factors that have led to London's acute road congestion and of the likely impact on that congestion of continuing trends in car use. It is here that the Government find themselves with irreconcilable objectives. In "Traffic in London", the Government say :

Column 786

"people's aspirations to own and use a car should not be artificially constrained".

However, in June this year a letter from the transportation unit of the Department of the Environment stated that it recognised "the need to reduce traffic levels where appropriate for environmental and other reasons there is therefore no question of providing for all the potential demand".

The red route proposals encapsulate the Government's muddled thinking. They are designed to speed people through--surely the most potent invitation to the reluctant motorist to abandon the awful tube or the appalling rail service and drive to work instead. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) clearly recognised that danger in his speech. He cautioned me not to make party political mischief out of the issue, but I have to say to him that that is not our choice. Labour's policy on traffic restraint is absolutely clear and to the point. It coincides with the broadest possible political consensus in London.

The red routes will do nothing to reduce the volume of traffic coming into central London. Yet again, the Government offer a piecemeal approach that, while appearing to solve some problems, will exacerbate others, as has been set out very clearly in the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

London needs a comprehensive strategy, designed of course to reduce congestion but also to provide for commercial transport needs and deliveries, for good quality, affordable public transport and for a cleaner, safer environment. Red routes will not deliver that strategy to London. In this capital city we are already at crisis point, yet the Government continue to predict an increase in private car use while allowing public transport to reach an all-time low. The new Secretary of State for Transport would do well to remember the ignominious demise of the London assessment studies. They were defeated overwhelmingly by the arguments on this side of the House and by the implacable opposition of the residents in the affected neighbourhoods. Londoners decisively rejected road building in favour of public transport. I draw to the Secretary of State's attention the recent report of the Consumers Association, which found a large measure of public support for traffic restraint and public transport provision.

The Secretary of State emphasised that red routes will benefit buses. Of course we welcome any action that improves bus services. However, he could do so much more were it not for the Government's ideological commitment to deregulation and privatisation. Bus riding in London continues to fall and bus services throughout the capital continue to deteriorate. The stringent enforcement of parking restrictions would undoubtedly help bus flows, which we should welcome. We should also welcome similar restrictions throughout London as a whole.

The pilot plan envisages the creation of additional bus lanes. Again, that is to be welcomed. However, a comprehensive network of bus lanes that are properly and effectively policed is needed for the whole of London. More priority ought to be given to buses at traffic lights. It is not clear to us whether the proposed measures will include that priority, which technically it would be possible to implement.

Column 787

The contradictions in Government thinking are further illustrated by their attitude towards local authorities that are affected by the pilot scheme and towards traffic-calming measures and measures to assist cyclists and pedestrians that they are supposed to encompass. The latter are welcomed by the boroughs and residents alike, yet the Government insist on painting the red lines before any other measures can be put in place. Their rationale for proceeding in this way escapes me. I trust that the Minister for Roads and Traffic will provide an explanation when he winds up the debate.

As the Secretary of State said, parking enforcement is vital in London. He told us that every day some 200,000 parking offences are committed in this city. I am told that 149 of the 150 offenders go free. It has been estimated that increased enforcement could reduce illegal parking by almost a half, with a consequent dramatic effect on congestion.

Parking enforcement is in the hands of three agencies--the police, traffic wardens and local authorities. The result is wholly unsatisfactory. This year, fewer fixed penalty notices have been issued than in 1989. The police have enough to do in fighting serious crime ; the traffic warden service is severely understaffed ; and local authorities have limited powers of enforcement. The Government are clearly not serious about the problem. There is a need for a new and streamlined system.

The Bill goes some way to tackling the problem. It transfers sole responsibility for permitted parking to the boroughs. In addition, the boroughs will be able to remove and clamp vehicles, which is welcome, but illegal parking will still be enforced by traffic wardens. In any one area, therefore, there will be two enforcement agencies. Not only will there be duplication of effort, but the state of the traffic warden service must raise serious doubts about whether the yellow lines will be effectively policed if the red routes become the priority for traffic wardens. I suggest that it makes more sense to give boroughs all the parking enforcement responsibility for local roads and we shall certainly table amendments in Committee to that effect.

There is also the question of the level of fines that the Secretary of State intends to set for the red routes. Will the Minister give his ideas on that matter?

Finally, we come to the proposed traffic director for London--the one-man quango with draconian powers. Once again, when London is crying out for a strategic authority to oversee London's transport planning, we have yet another body with powers to tinker with bits of the system. His powers of imposition will be considerable, but his duties to consult will be non- existent. We give notice to our intention to table amendments in Committee to make the traffic director more accountable to the people whom he is to serve. Furthermore, we shall oppose the provision for fining local authorities that do not comply with his plans.

We do not intend to press the Bill to a vote, because we can support many of its measures and are anxious to make progress on its road safety measures with due diligence. I give notice, however, on behalf of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies and my colleagues in the Association of London Authorities, that we regard the red route proposals not only as flawed but as a totally inadequate response to the transport chaos of our capital

Column 788

city. We shall seek to amend the Bill in Committee and, once in government, we shall legislate for the elected strategic authority that London needs. We shall provide the means by which an integrated public transport system can be developed to secure the interests of the people of London, of its economy and of its environment. 12.28 am

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope) : It is difficult to remember a more constructive or better humoured debate on the Second Reading of a major Bill. If I detect the mood of the House correctly, it is to delay no further in giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

I thank hon. Members who participated in the debate and showed their overwhelming support for the aim of the Bill--to assist in reducing road casualties and countering congestion, particularly in London. Although there have been disagreements, they have been about the means of attaining the objectives rather than the objectives themselves.

Many hon. Members spoke of the omission from the Bill of any reference to random breath testing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, delivered a forceful speech full of conviction on that point. So forceful was his delivery that those who heard it could never have suspected that this was his first day back after a bout of pneumonia. We are delighted to have him with us.

I remind the House that the police have adequate powers to order roadside breath tests. It is lawful for a police officer in uniform acting in the execution of his duty to require the driver of any vehicle on a road to stop. A police officer who stops a vehicle on a road with the purpose of investigating whether its driver has alcohol in his body is acting in the execution of his duty. It is therefore lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random for that purpose, provided that there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct on the part of the officer. It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require a driver who has been stopped in such circumstances to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, provided that the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body.

I believe that the existing powers are sufficient. Indeed, they have permitted a tripling in the number of breath tests over the past decade. Last December alone, there were over 111,000 screening breath tests. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and others who want to give the police more powers : to what end? Do we really want police officers to spend their time giving breath tests to motorists whom they do not suspect of having alcohol in their bodies? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)--surely a targeted approach is a better approach. Last December, 91 per cent. of all those who had screening breath tests produced negative results. Surely that bears out the effectiveness of the existing powers as a deterrent.

Mr. McCartney rose --

Mr. Chope : I have devoted almost all my concluding remarks to that issue because it was debated at greatest length.

As a former Secretary of State for Transport, it must be a great pleasure for my right hon. Friend the Member for

Column 789

Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) to see the continuing beneficial impact of his radical period of tenure in the Department, particularly in terms of deregulation of long-distance coaches and the privatisation of the National Freight Corporation. I am sure that he is right in saying that the public is again in a receptive mood for further radical transport policies. I assure the House that, under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State, people will not be disappointed.

Mr. Corbyn rose --

Mr. Chope : I shall not give way because I have little time left. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was right to emphasise the way in which enforcement of road traffic law has not kept pace with traffic growth and new technology. Our estimate is that, when clause 19 is fully implemented, some 2 million extra offences will be detected and subject to prosecution on fixed penalty tickets, which will mean that the certainty of detection will be much greater. That is the greatest deterrent. In turn, that will lead to a dramatic improvement in road safety.

Let us remember that the authorities in Paris have introduced the axes rouges, with much more draconian powers than we seek from the House. Already, the immediate effects of the 17 miles where the axes rouges have been introduced in Paris are that journey times are down by 15 to 20 per cent. and the average speed in the central area has increased from 6 to 12 mph. That shows that we are on the right lines in proposing red routes for London.

The Bill contains important measures to reduce road casualties and to counter congestion and traffic pollution. It deserves the support of the whole--

Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that there was a 10 o'clock business motion, which means that debate on the Bill can continue until any hour, even though it is opposed, and that the Minister is deliberately seeking not to answer the points raised in the debate concerning the appointment of a traffic commissioner for London?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : The second point is a matter for the Minister, not the Chair. On the first point, the hon. Member is correct in saying that there was a 10 o'clock motion and therefore the debate is open-ended.

Mr. Chope : I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to further constructive debate in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Column 790

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified --

Resolved,

That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--

(a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for the payment of grants to the Traffic Director for London,

(b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and

(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,

That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees), if European Community Document No. 9601/90 relating to non-standard work is recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation for further consideration, the said document shall not stand referred to any European Standing Committee.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Education

That the draft Education Support Grants Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

12.35 am

Sedgley

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South) : I beg leave to present a petition, signed by nearly 1,000 people in the Sedgley part of my constituency, which deals with the proposal by the neighbouring Manchester city council to incorporate part of Sedgley within its boundaries. The petition rejects Manchester city council's proposals and my constituents have told me in no uncertain terms that they do not wish to live under a left-wing Labour council whose reputation for high charges and abysmal service is legendary. I support my constituents without reservation and will do everything in my power to resist this extraordinary takeover bid by Labour Manchester.

The petition reads :

"Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to take note of the proposal by Manchester City Council and shall reject that proposal and ensure that those parts of Sedgley in Prestwich that are covered by it shall remain with the Metropolitan Borough of Bury and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc."

To lie upon the Table.

Column 791

Druridge Bay (Sand Extraction)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

12.36 am

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : The title of the debate suggests that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and I should pack our buckets and spades for a seaside outing. If buckets and spades were all that there was to it, we would not have a problem. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the removal of sand on a much larger scale.

Druridge bay consists of over six miles of magnificent Northumberland countryside--one continuous beach backed by dunes. Part of the bay is owned by the National Trust and associated with it are four nature reserves, giving protection to rare species of birds and vegetation. There is also a designated site of special scientific interest at Cresswell ponds.

During the summer months and at weekends the area is very popular with people from Tyneside, but it is so large that it can absorb quite a large number of people without losing any of its beauty or any of the sense of remoteness and release that it gives. It cannot so readily absorb or cope with industrial threats, however. One--the plan to build a nuclear power station, against which many of us have been campaigning for over a decade-- has receded, along with the rest of the Government's nuclear power programme. I hope that that proposal never reappears ; if it does, it will be bitterly contested.

The threat with which we are concerned tonight, however, is that of the erosion of the sand, made worse by industrial sand extraction. Sand has been extracted for many years from the dunes and foreshore--originally it was in very small quantities. Planning permissions were refused for the main areas of activity--Hemscott hill and Blakemoor burn--in 1959 and 1964 respectively. The planning authority took the view that industrial sand extraction on a significant scale should not take place at either of those locations. Then, Ministers of Housing and Local Government--one Conservative and one Labour--gave permission on appeal for both the sites, in 1960 and in 1966 respectively. Since those dates, the areas have been worked--first, by a local builder and since 1982 by Northern Aggregates, a subsidiary of RMC Ltd.

The sand extraction is undertaken by one mechanical shovel, which, since the beginning of 1988, has operated only on the smaller of the two sites-- Blakemoor burn--where sand is dug out from the foreshore. On the larger site--Hemscott hill--sand may be dug from the foreshore or from the dunes and the existing permission allows for the complete removal of the dunes along a 1,500 yd stretch of coastline. There are no restrictions on the hours of working or on the number of wagons that can be used to take away the sand. Approximately 40,000 tonnes of sand is taken each year. In 1960, when it all started, only 14,000 tonnes were taken. There is no quantity limit and it is estimated that over 1 million tonnes have been extracted in that way. It is important to note that the planning permissions were granted on appeal and not by the local authorities in the first place. I do not believe that permission for sand extraction on that scale would have been granted today by the present Minister or any recent Minister. The extraction appears not to have been made subject even to some of the

Column 792

conditions envisaged by the inspectors at the two inquiries. The inspector recommended in 1960 that the appeal should be allowed and he suggested that planning permission should be given for periods of "three and four years at a time so that sea encroachment and land drainage might be kept under review.

As regards the foreshore, the Minister sees no reason why it should not be worked to a limited extent."

The inspector's report also stated :

"The Minister doubts whether it is practicable to limit annual production for the area to a fixed amount The Minister does not think it necessary to limit any permission to a term of years." The inspector's report was not even borne out in the Minister's decision which did not impose the kind of restrictions that the inspector seemed to envisage.

In 1965 the inspector referred to allowing the appeal and granting permission

"to the extent and subject to such conditions as are necessary to ensure that the cleaning is on a scale and in a similar manner to that which was carried out before the appellant commenced work on the site."

However, the conditions set that year do not bear that out. They are not sufficient to limit the extraction of sand to the level that was going on before 1960 or 1965.

I do not believe that permission for extraction would have been granted today. Even if it were, it would be subject to the kind of conditions that the inspectors envisaged back in the 1960s, but which were not applied. One of the conditions was that one small mechanical shovel should be used. Of course, that term now extends to quite a modern piece of equipment that has three times the capacity of the machine used in 1960.

We should also bear it in mind that since then the Cresswell pond site has been declared a site of special scientific interest. However, because of the planning permission, it could not be extended so that its limitations covered the whole area, as that would have made the declaration retrospective and outwith the terms of the SSSI legislation.

So far as I know, nothing like this is tolerated elsewhere on anything like this scale. The county council has inquired around the country and has found that in almost all comparable cases permissions were more restricted and in many cases had been brought to an end. The planning permissions to which I have referred effectively last until 2042. They have more than 50 years to go. People in the area are deeply concerned about what is happening and about seeing their beach removed in that way.

Much of the concern stems from the fear of significant erosion. Research undertaken in 1970 by Professor Clayton of the University of East Anglia and research undertaken in 1985 and 1986 by Babtie, Shaw and Morton for Castle Morpeth borough council showed that the effects of sand removal coupled with coal mining subsidence affecting some parts of the bay could lead to a danger of inundation by the sea. The Babtie, Shaw and Morton report stated :

"Sea encroachment would flood and contaminate large areas of agricultural and amentity land, together with the C110 Cresswell to Druridge road."

That road is flooded today. The area that has been cut away was flooded-- the sea broke into it during the stormy weather of the past weekend.

The former warden for the Northumberland wildlife trust of the area around Druridge bay said that, at the present rate, within 20 years we will not have any sand dunes, and that if one takes sand from one point, the sand

Next Section

Home Page