| Previous Section | Home Page |
Clause 54
The Secretary of State's parking guidance
Amendments made : No. 46, in page 49, line 30, after second to' insert those authorities'.
No. 47, in page 49, line 38, after issuing' insert or varying'. No. 48, in page 49, line 41, after Transport' insert--
(bb) such associations of London authorities (if any) as he thinks appropriate'.-- [Mr. Chope.]
Clause 62
Representations in relation to immobilisation ofvehicles under section 60
Amendments made : No. 49, in page 54, line 41, leave out made' and insert received by them'.
No. 50, in page 54, line 45, leave out 42' and insert 56'. No. 51, in page 55, line 13, leave out 42' and insert 56'.-- [Mr. Chope.]
Clause 63
Appointment of parking adjudicators by joint committee of the London authorities
11.45 pm
Mr. Spearing : I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 55, line 46, leave out this part' and insert sections 54-65'.
We now move from the controversial subject of red routes to the equally--if not more--controversial subject of parking. Clauses 54 to 65 are labelled "Parking in London" and contain yet another series of guidelines on parking for local authorities, which are to be issued by the Secretary of State. The authorities will have to draw up a series of proposals, and the guidelines cover almost seven pages of the Bill. I am sure that they were discussed at great length in Committee. Following your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not venture into that, although I am sure that a fascinating description of the guidelines would be in order, as they are about to descend on unsuspecting Londoners.
The guidelines on parking tell local authorities what to do. I doubt that they relate only to red routes, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that. As I understand them, they apply to parking in general and therefore subsume parking in or around red routes or areas affected by red routes.
It is curious that the guidelines involve appeals, new bodies and a vast amount of bureaucracy, which is extraordinary coming from a party that does not believe in that sort of thing.
Clause 63 states that a joint committee of London authorities shall, be set up to appoint parking adjudicators. Paragraph 3(a) relates to the amendment. It states that the London authorities shall, "with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, appoint persons to act as parking adjudicators for the purposes of this Part of this Act".
Column 923
Having carried out a great deal of traffic management through the red routes, the Secretary of State seeks to take complete control of parking guidance. That puts in the shade something that he said earlier today about the local authority authorities taking control of parking. If they have to deal with parking under his guidance, it may differ from what some of us were led to believe earlier.Not content with that, the Bill states that the local authorities will name the persons who, with the Lord Chancellor's consent, will be the adjudicators. Their duties will include responsibility for parking matters, including the costs. The rules that they will have to follow will be rather complicated.
I can imagine what will happen. When there is a hassle, someone will ask who appointed the adjudicators. The Minister will be able to say that the local authorities appointed them. As has happened in so many other spheres, the Government's responsibilities will be loaded on to local authorities.
I suggest that it would be more appropriate if the proposals were not in the clauses that deal with red routes, but in clauses 54 to 65, because they deal with matters refer to parking in general. It seems that the proposals refer back to the earlier clauses which relate to red routes. That suggests that the adjudicators may also have a great deal of power over the red routes.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. Have the adjudicators any functions in respect of the red routes in clauses before clause 54, or are they concerned only in duties and obligations in clause 54 onwards? If the answer is the latter, I suggest that the Bill should say so. If the former, can the Minister tell us what role the adjudicators will have in respect of red routes? They are yet another group of persons amid a plethora of local authorities, directors, Ministers and guidance with which we shall have to grapple.
Mr. Chope : The adjudicators will be concerned with the latter of the two categories referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, it is fair to say that, if there is a permitted parking area on a red route, it will come under the local authority parking regime to which the Bill refers. The adjudicators will be able to adjudicate on grievances in relation to the penalty for overstaying on that parking area.
I understand that the hon. Member for Newham, South is trying to be helpful and is suggesting a drafting improvement. I am advised that the intention is set out clearly in the Bill as drafted. However, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will look to see whether any benefit could be gained from further clarification.
Mr. Spearing : By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the clarification, but it makes my worries even greater. The Minister has confirmed that, where parking is allowed on red routes-- perhaps where the roads widen or where there is a facility for parking that does not interfere with the traffic flow--and there are disputes, grievances or matters coming within their jurisdiction, the adjudicators will have statutory powers. That is the present position.
Yet again, therefore, we confirm the all-to-frequent position--dare I mention the poll tax--in which authoritarian legislation from the centre has to be
Column 924
administered. In this case, it will be administered by semi-judicial fiat adjudicators who are appointed by the hapless local authorities. In an earlier debate, it was said that the local authorities cannot even take into account the proper--in my interpretation- -interests of frontages, both residential and otherwise.Although I understand why the Minister has clarified the matter, it shows only that the scheme will cause a great deal of trouble in London and to the Government. I cannot push the amendment, so I thank the Minister for his clarification and tell him that it will cause him and everyone else an awful lot of trouble.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64
Fixing of certain parkingand other charges for London
Amendment made : No. 23, in page 58, line 15, leave out subsection (8).-- [Mr. Chope.]
Clause 69
Interpretation of Part II
Amendment made : In page 60, line 31, at end insert--
(3A) In determining, for the purposes of any provision of this Part of this Act, whether a penalty charge has been paid before the end of a particular period, it shall be taken to be paid when it is received by the London authority concerned.-- [Mr. Chope.]
Schedule 2
Amendment to Schedule
2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act-- 1988
Ms. Ruddock : I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 66, line 10, column 4, leave out 3' and insert 4'.
The effect of the amendment is to increase the penalty for driving after making a false declaration about physical fitness, from a level 3 fine to a level 4 fine. Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with the physical fitness of drivers. An applicant for a driving licence must disclose in his or her application whether he or she is suffering or has ever suffered from certain disabilities. The Secretary of State must refuse a licence to an applicant who is suffering from a relevant disability. The disabilities, which are prescribed by regulation, include epilepsy, severe mental handicap, liability to sudden attacks of giddiness or fainting and acute short sight.
Clause 16(1) amends that section of the 1988 Act by inserting a new subsection, making it an offence to drive a vehicle if the person involved knows that the declaration about physical fitness in his or her application for a driving licence is false. Paragraph 21 of schedule 2 introduces a consequential amendment to schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, setting the penalty for the new offence at a level 3 fine.
This is an important area of road traffic law because the condition of the driver of a vehicle is as important as the condition of the vehicle. It is not simply selfish or stupid to drive when medically unfit to do so, it is also potentially dangerous to other road users.
The amendment would increase the penalty for that offence from a level 3 to a level 4 fine. It is important primarily as a way of highlighting the importance of the
Column 925
offence. The amendment would also bring the penalty more into line with the penalty for driving after a licence has been refused or revoked under section 92 of the 1988 Act, which is six months imprisonment or a level 5 fine.It is, however, important to add that the amendment deals with only one aspect of the problem : to ensure that people who are not medically fit to drive do not do so and therefore do not create a road safety risk for other road users. Equally important--and in the current financial climate more difficult--is the need to ensure that alternative forms of transport are available through concessionary fare schemes and the availability of services designed specifically to help people with disabilities so that they are not tempted to continue to drive and to break the law. I hope that the Minister will accept this simple amendment, which will increase safety on our roads.
Mr. Chope : I am happy to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed : No. 34. in page 66 line 48 after second accident)', insert (a)'.-- [Mr. Chope.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 16, in page 66, line 48 leave out from in' to end off line 49 and insert
columns 3 and 4 there shall be substituted--
(a) Summarily (a) six months or level 5 on the standard scale or both.
(b) On indictment (b) "two years or a fine or both".'.
Government amendment No. 35.
Ms. Ruddock : I want to refer to amendment No. 16.
The act of failing to report an accident can have serious consequences. It may mean that a casualty is not dealt with as speedily as would otherwise be the case. It may mean that valuable evidence, in terms of either the state of the driver or the condition of the vehicle is lost, and it creates additional work for the police as a result of having to trace the driver and establish the circumstances surroundingg the incident. In short, it is an extremely serious offence which can have costly implications, both for the individuals concerned and the police.
In certain circumstances--for example, where a driver is over the legal alcohol limit-- there may be a temptation to run. It is essential that in such cases the driver is in a position where the consequences of running are likely to be worse than not running. Amendment No. 16 would increase the maximum penalty for failure to stop and report an accident to two years imprisonment or a fine, or both. The amendment would further provide different maximum penalties for the two different modes of prosecution.
Mr. Waller : Eight or so hours ago, I paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to what had been said in Committee and for tabling an appropriate new clause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend once more because, following what I said in Committee, he has moved an amendment that goes a long way towards implementing what I suggested.
The recommendations of Dr. North were not invariably correct. He failed to take account of varying degrees of culpability attached to the offence of failing to stop to report an accident. The Magistrates Association was unhappy with the more restrictive discretion accorded to courts. I welcome the fact that that has been recognised and that the discretion that will now be available to courts in terms of the number of penalty points that they decide
Column 926
to award in individual cases will be much greater. That is a great improvement, and it should be welcomed. That is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister.Mr. Chope : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for his comments. I cannot accept amendment No. 16, suggested by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), because it goes too far in increasing the maximum penalty to as much as two years' imprisonment. I hope that the House will reject that amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made : No. 35, in page 66, line 49 at end insert and
(b) in column 7 for "8-10" there shall be substituted "5-10".'. No. 36, in page 67, leave out line 4 and insert--
Schedule 3
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendments made : No. 92, in page 70, line 39, at end insert-- . In section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (experimental traffic orders) in subsection (1)(b) for the words "and 84" there shall be substituted the words "and 84(1)(a) or (b)".' No. 93, in page 70, line 40, leave out
the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984'
and insert that Act'.
No. 95, in page 71, line 19, at end insert--
. In paragraph 13 of Schedule 9 to that Act (consent of Secretary of State before local authority make certain orders), after sub-paragraph (1)(d)(ii) there shall be inserted--
"(iii
(a provision imposing a prohibition by virtue of paragraph (c) of that subsection, or".'.) No. 37, in page 74, line 9 leave out from beginning to end of line 18.-- [Mr. Chope.]
Amendments made : No. 96, in page 77, line 32, at end insert-- (2) In section 2(5) of that Act (disapplication of section 1(1) in Scotland relating to an offence under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) for the word "(2)" there shall be substituted the words "24(1)".'.
No. 97, in page 81, line 43, leave out In'.
No. 98, in page 81, line 45, after 35)' insert
shall be amended as follows.
"(2) In subsection (1), after the word "where", there shall be inserted the words "in England and Wales".
(3)'.
No. 99, in page 82, line 21 leave out In'.
No. 100, in page 82, line 21 after (interpretation)', insert shall be amended as follows.
(2) After the definition of "authorised person" there shall be inserted--
" chief constable' means, in Scotland in relation to any conditional offer, the chief constable for the area in which the conditional offer has been issued".
(3)' -- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Column 927
Schedule 5
Parking penalties
Amendment made : No. 25, in page 87, line 1 leave out made' and insert received by them'.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Schedule 6
Minor and Consequential Amendments in Relation to London
Amendments made : No. 26, in page 90, line 18 at end insert in consequence of extraordinary circumstances'.-- [Mr. Chope.] No. 52, in page 91, line 30 at end insert--
The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 . In section 60 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (traffic-sensitive streets), after subsection (3) there shall be added--
"(4) Where a London authority are asked by the Traffic Director for London to designate a street as a traffic-sensitive street and the authority decline to do so, the Director may appeal to the Secretary of State who may direct that the street be designated.
In this subsection London authority' and priority route' have the same meanings as in Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991.".'.-- [Lords James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Schedule 7
Repeals
Amendments made : No. 38, in page 93, line 41, column 3, at end insert--
Date |Site name |Operator |Waste disposal authority ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 April 1987 |Bryn Posteg Site, Montgomery |Montgomery DC |Montgomery DC 9 April 1987 |Bryn Posteg Site, Montgomery |Montgomery DC |Montgomery DC 10 April 1987 |Bryn Posteg Site, Montgomery |Montgomery DC |Montgomery DC 13 April 1987 |Tirpentwys, Pontypool |Torfaen BC |Torfaen BC 1 May 1987 |Tirpentwys, Pontypool |Torfawn BC |Torfaen BC 2 May 1987 |Tirpentwys, Pontypool |Torfaen BC |Torfaen BC 7 May 1987 |Consolidated Beryllium Ltd. |Consolidated Beryllium Ltd. |Preseli/Pembroke DC 7 May 1987 |Underhills Site |Dyfed Sludge Ltd. 24 June 1987 |BSC Site |Alyn and Deeside DC |Alyn and Deeside DC 24 June 1987 |Cape Insulation |Alyn and Deeside DC |Alyn and Deeside DC 25 June 1987 |Sandycroft BSC |Pilkington |Alyn and Deeside DC 25 June 1987 |Pilkington Insulation Products |Pilkington |Alyn and Deeside DC 25 June 1987 |Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd. |Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 26 June 1987 |Clwyd Waste Disposal, Rossett |Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 31 July 1987 |Tirpentwys |Torfaen BC |Torfaen BC 13 August 1987 |Dark Lane Site |Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 14 August 1987 |Old Bridge Inn, Padeswood |A. Scarfo |Alyn and Deeside DC 14 August 1987 |Scarfo |Alyn and Deeside DC |Alyn and Deeside DC 27 August 1987 |Municipal Site |Brecknock BC |Brecknock BC 25 September 1987 |Municipal Site |Wrexham Maelor BC |Wrexham Maelor BC 6 January 1988 |Municipal Site |Ynys Mon BC |Ynys Mon BC 22 January 1988 |Municipal Site |Taff Ely BC |Taff Ely BC 3 February 1988 |Municipal Site |Preseli/Pembroke BC |Preseli/Pembroke BC 12 February 1988 |Cwmrhydyceirw Quarry |Cymrhydyceirw |Swansea CC 23 February 1988 |Municipal Site |Radnor DC |Radnor DC 8 March 1988 |Cwmrhydyceirw Quarry |Swansea CC |Swansea CC 9 March 1988 |Ruthin W D |Glyndwr DC |Glyndwr DC 9 March 1988 |Municipal Site |Glyndwr DC |Glyndwr DC 11 March 1988 |Municipal Site |Wrexham Maelor BC |Wrexham Maelor BC 16 March 1988 |Municipal Site |Rhymney Valley DC |Rhymney Valley DC 20 June 1988 |Tirpentwys |Torfaen BC |Torfaen BC 24 June 1988 |Cambrian Quarry |Leigh Interests Ltd. |Delyn BC 24 June 1988 |Redland Aggregates Graig Quarry|Redland Aggregates |Wrexham Maelor BC 24 June 1988 |Dark Lane Waste Site |Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 8 July 1988 |Dark Lane Waste Site |Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 15 July 1988 |Phurnacite |NSF |Cynon Valley BC 22 July 1988 |Briton Ferry Port |Neath BC |Neath BC 10 August 1988 |Borth Landfill Site |Ceredigion DC |Ceredigion DC 10 August 1988 |Rhydeino, Llanarth |Ceredigion DC |Ceredigion DC 11 August 1988 |Blaenau Ffestiniog |Meirionnydd DC |Meirionnydd DC 11 August 1988 |Ruthin Waste Disposal Site |Meirionnydd DC |Meirionnydd DC 11 August 1988 |Municipal Site |Meirionnydd DC |Meirionnydd DC 28 October 1988 |Cwmrhydyceirw Quarry |Swansea CC |Swansea CC 12 December 1988 |Municipal Site |Wrexham Maelor BC |Wrexham Maelor BC 13 December 1988 |Municipal Site |Alyn and Deeside DC |Alyn and Deeside DC 14 December 1988 |Municipal Site |Montgomery DC |Montgomery DC 15 January 1989 |Municipal Site |Llanelli BC |Llanelli BC 16 January 1989 |Bird Shredded Products, Cardiff|Birds |Cardiff CC 19 January 1989 |Llanstar Wimpey Waste |Lanstar Wimpey |Wrexham Maelor BC 19 January 1989 |Cadishead, Manchester |Wimpey Waste |Wrexham Maelor BC 25 January 1989 |Dark Lane |Caird Environmental Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 2 February 1989 |Ferry Road |Cardiff CC |Cardiff CC 6 February 1989 |Ferry Road |Cardiff CC |Cardiff CC 10 February 1989 |Rover Way Site |Cardiff CC |Cardiff CC 27 February 1989 |Briton Ferry |Neath BC |Neath BC 1 March 1989 |Municipal Site |Wrexham Maelor BC |Wrexham Maelor BC 1 June 1989 |Port Talbot |Wistech Plc. |Port Talbot BC 28 June 1989 |Tirpentwys Site |Torfaen BC |Torfaen BC 29 June 1989 |Caldicot |Monmouth DC |Monmouth DC 29 June 1989 |Abergarney |Monmouth DC |Monmouth DC 29 June 1989 |Severn Tunnel Site |Monmouth DC |Monmouth DC 6 July 1989 |Municipal Site |Taff Ely BC |Taff Ely BC 10 July 1989 |Dark Lane |Caird Environmental Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 5 October 1989 |Dark Lane |Caird Environmental Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 5 October 1989 |Dark Lane |Wrexham Maelor BC |Wrexham Maelor BC 5 October 1989 |Garden Lodge Landfill Site |Shanks and McEwan Plc. |Wrexham Maelor BC 3 November 1989 |Llantrisant, Cardiff |Cardiff CC |Cardiff CC 13 December 1989 |Motorway Remoulds, Knighton |Motorway Remoulds |Radnor DC 13 December 1989 |Castle Works (1), Flint |Delyn BC |Delyn BC 13 December 1989 |Maes-y-Grug Quarry |A. Mealor & Sons |Delyn BC 20 December 1989 |Bryn Gwiog Quarry, Hendre |Delyn BC |Delyn BC 20 December 1989 |Crown Chert Quarry, Trelogan |Ellis Davies & Son |Delyn BC 11 January 1990 |Llanddullas, Colwyn Bay, Clwyd |Colwyn BC |Colwyn BC 16 February 1990 |Crown Chert Quarry, Trelogan |Ellis Davies & Son |Clwyd CC 2 March 1990 |J. A. Williams Site, Forden |J. A. Williams |Montgomery DC 2 March 1990 |Potters Site, Pool Quay |G. Potter |Montgomery DC 5 March 1990 |Caeya Farm, Overton |T. Williams |Wrexham Maelor BC 5 March 1990 |Dark Lane, Burton, Rossett |Caird Environmental Ltd. |Wrexham Maelor BC 7 November 1990 |Milford Haven |Consolidated Berlyllium Ltd. |Preseli/Pembroke BC 15 November 1990 |Cwmrhydyceirw |Max Recovery Ltd. |Swansea CC 22 January 1991 |Silent Valley |Blaenau Gwent BC |Blaenau Gwent BC 29 January 1991 |Griffiths Crossing |Ferodo Ltd. |Arfon BC 29 January 1991 |Bryn Posteg, Llandeilo |Montgomery DC |Montgomery DC
No. 101, in page 94, line 18, at end insert--
|£ million
-------------------------------
<1>1990-91 |419
1991-92 |444
1992-93 |443
<1>Estimated out-turn.
--[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-- [Mr. Chope.]
12.1 am
Mr. Corbyn : The Committee and Report stages of the Bill have been fascinating. I wish to put three brief points on the record. First, like everyone else, I welcome any methods that improve road safety and the safety of road users, be they in a car, pedestrians, cyclists or anything else. However, the Bill is, in many ways, a missed opportunity. We in this country are in danger of presiding over an enormous increase in the amount of road traffic when we should be considering alternative means of transport and the environmental effects of the continually increasing use of private motor cars. We should be especially concerned about the effects of that on our cities.
Secondly, part II contains a major extension of central Government powers over those of local authorities, with
Column 928
the introduction of the priority route scheme. That will not enhance safety ; it will increase the levels of noise, dust and gas pollution in our inner city areas. The Government will take powers away from the local authorities which badly need them and will introduce a traffic director for London, with whom traffic commissioners will work.Thirdly, if the Bill is enacted--I suspect that it will be--the Government will achieve the principle of taking many traffic planning measures away from local authorities in London, and exactly the same could be done in other parts of the country. We are moving to a ridiculously centralised state where very localised traffic matters can be decided by the Secretary of State for Transport and charged to the local authority. The principle of reducing the number of cars and the amount of traffic that enters the central area of London, or any other major city if the provisions are extended to other cities, has been ignored.
The people of London have made their views clear when opposing motorway building schemes and the introduction of the priority route scheme. They do not wish to see more traffic in the inner urban area. They want less. They want a cleaner city, with fewer cars and better public transport. I wish that the Bill met the needs of Londoners in that respect. Tragically, I fear that it does not.
12.3 am
Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham) : By legalising speed cameras and red light cameras, part I should make a major contribution to the improvement of road safety. Part II, and the red route scheme, should make a major contribution to easing traffic congestion in the capital. I am sorry that the Opposition have been so churlish in their approach to the Bill's efforts to ease congestion and that they seem anxious to let traffic jams continue.
12.4 am
Mr. Spearing : This should not have been a matter for party controversy. Traffic in London has been a continuing concern of all its citizens, of whatever party, throughout the past century. The Bill will not ease the major causes of congestion because they are not even logged or known by the Department of Transport, which can be proved by the fact that it could not answer certain questions that I have asked over the past two or three years. The Bill might increase traffic flow marginally on certain routes, but it will do so at great cost. It is largely impractical. It will take considerable resources in person power. It is bureaucratic to an almost unbelievable degree. The statute is complex and will cause a great deal of difficulty, even to lawyers.
The tone of part II of the Bill is authoritarian. It imposes central will on local government and even prevents local authorities from properly protecting the interests of people within their areas. It gives power to central Government to an unprecedented and almost unimaginable degree over matters which are certainly local government matters in London. No Government, of whatever quality, power or party, would seek to impose the measures in the Bill which affect London or Birmingham, Cardiff or Edinburgh.
Part II of the Bill is thoroughly bad and will have to be revised. I hope that it rebounds on its perpetrators.
Column 929
12.6 amMr. Peter Bottomley : The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has paid his tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen. Part I of the Bill is a culmination of the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, with the interdepartmental committee of officials and the establishment of the North committee. We should also remember Judge Frank Blennerhasset, who more than 20 years ago got us moving on some of the issues which are important for cutting casualties. I hope that part I gets through the House of Lords without serious amendment but possibly with improvements. The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety amendment, which was not selected, was important. It dealt with retesting after disqualification for drink-driving. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the measure. When this legislation is out of the way, I hope that the House and the Government, together with the voluntary bodies among whom PACTS and the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving, will consider other ways in which we can cut casualties.
It may not be possible to cut minor casualties by a third by the year 2000, but it ought still to be regarded as a heavy responsibility to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries by a third. That will require a combination of vehicle measures, such as pedestrian-friendly car fronts, and a method of dealing with our appalling record of casualties among children, which is caused by a mixture of problems with our road layout, education and parental control and chaperonage of young children. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall see the same effort put into those measures as has put into polishing up the Bill presented to the House last year.
12.7 am
Mr. Fearn : I have sat quiet for the past two hours, although for the first six hours I was not quiet. My party gives almost wholehearted support to the intentions behind the majority of the measures contained in the first part of the Bill. Some of the clauses could have been in line with the recommendations of the North report. As I said earlier, I am disappointed that Conservative Members were not allowed a free vote on random breath testing. I would also have liked hon. Members to be given the opportunity to debate the measures on re-testing through an extended driving test of drivers disqualified as a result of alcohol-related offences.
On the whole, the measures in part I of the Bill should make our roads much safer. I cannot give the same support to part II. The concept of red routes is misguided and the appointment of a traffic director for London, with such powers as the Bill confers on him, is undemocratic. Local authorities have lost many of their powers under the Government, and the appointment of a traffic director, or one-man quango, weakens their role even further. However, my party will support the Bill in the interests of road safety.
The Committee was a good one and I congratulate the chairman, who was excellent and very expeditious. I am disappointed that the Minister did not accept any of the amendments that I tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on Mobility of the Disabled and even more disappointed that the two amendments dealing with the disabled which I tabled were not selected today. The needs
Column 930
of disabled people should not be forgotten. Unfortunately time and time again they are. Disabled people are not catered for adequately on the public transport system. Often the private motor vehicle is their only means of travel. I hope that amendments to ensure that their needs are taken into account will be tabled in the other place.Red routes are not the answer to London's traffic problems. What is needed is a full Government commitment to resource the whole London transport system, so that it is operated in an integrated way. That is what the Government should be considering, not red routes. 12.9 am
| Next Section
| Home Page |