|
Mr. Knight: I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but my hon. Friend should give some of the examples of red tape that currently exist. Doing so may mean that some of the more enlightened Labour Members decide to support his argument; I am thinking in particular of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). As I understand it, currently, a budget hotel situated in a motorway service area cannot serve alcohol with a resident's dinner. It is one of the restrictions. A person cannot have a glass of wine with their meal if they stay at a hotel in a motorway service area. Surely that is ridiculous. I also understand that there are restrictions on the size of the trading area. I think that it is restricted to 5,000 sq ft. Why is it not 15,000 sq ft, to make the areas more attractive and to encourage drivers to stop more frequently? Those points are essential to my hon. Friend's case.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for informing me of his concern about this issue. He has mentioned a couple of examples. I will mention another; signage. Sometimes when people are on the motorway they want to get information about what is available at a motorway service area. One of the most important things is the price of petrol. Invariably, motorway service area signs used to show the price of petrol, but that seems to have fallen into desuetude
Column Number: 261
recently, meaning that motorists are in the dark about whether they will get a good bargain on the petrol price if they go into that service area.
Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con): No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that something like 45 per cent. of motorists leave the motorway to find the services that they want, yet it would appear that 23 per cent. of all motorway accidents occur at sliproads and junctions. Motorists are leaving the motorway to find services. Does he not think that we should be doing what we can to keep them on the motorway by making motorway service areas much more appealing and not just by having picnic areas?
Mr. Chope: I take my hon. Friend's point, which is a good one. We are talking about trying to make the existing motorway service areas more attractive. If we set up more picnic areas, we will be creating more entrances and exits on to the motorway, with the attendant problems for road safety that he has identified. I will give an example relating to signage. At the moment, there is no provision for a sign to indicate what range of facilities is available at a particular motorway service area. Some of them get round that by allowing enormous Burger King signs to sprout up, which are normally visible when the leaves are off the trees, but that is not really the right way forward. It would be much better if motorway service area operators were able to advertise the range of facilities on offer in good time on the motorway so that people could see what they wanted to get.
Another issue is the fact that there are few specialist facilities for heavy goods vehicles at motorway service areas. I know that motorway service area operators would like to open specially designed driver lounges for HGV drivers, with vending machines, amusement machines, large-screen televisions and upgraded shower facilities. They also want to increase the amount of parking space available to hauliers. There are lots of ideas coming from the motorway service area industry, but, as I understand it, no discussion is taking place between the industry and the Government. The Conservative Government deregulated the system to an extent, and we certainly encouraged greater provision and more competition. We think that the time is now ripe for further encouraging developments through deregulation. We are not at all sure that just allowing the provision of one new picnic area, possibly in the south-west quadrant of England, would be the answer. In fact, we are absolutely certain that it would not be the answer. We would like more specialist, proper provision that would incorporate the ability to get refreshments as well as just park up.
There has always been a big argument against unmanned picnic areas on motorways. They may be all right in the summer months and during daylight hours, but many people, particularly lone drivers, will feel intimidated by the prospect of using them at other times. Do we really think that we can encourage them to stop at such areas?
Column Number: 262
People have various concerns about the matter. This is an opportunity to talk about the future of our motorway service area network and the need for more service areas to serve the travelling public. We must ensure that such areas are of a high quality. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the suggestions that we have made.
Mr. Flook: It is interesting that I, as the MP for Taunton, am one of the few MPs who represents a motorway service area. Across the whole of the south-west, there are only 10 such areas; it seems that there are few of them along the M5 and the M4, which are in a region that contains 50-odd constituencies with millions of people. The Library tells me that there are nine motorway service areas for the 165 miles between Taunton and central London; roughly one every 20 miles. Put that way, it would seem that there are a number of motorway service areas.
It is surprising, therefore, that we should be discussing the need for so-called French aires and the regularity with which the Government want to place them along those 20 miles between service stations. I would appreciate it if the Minister addressed that point. New aires would impact considerably on motorway service areas. Under their service obligations, and where space allows, they provide rest facilities free of charge to the road user as part of their tenant agreement with the Highways Agency. How would new aires impact on the contractual obligations that the motorway service area owners already have and will continue to have with the Government? As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it is of great concern that clause 40 has been introduced without any consultation with or notification to the service area operators.
Mr. Jamieson indicated dissent.
Mr. Flook: The Minister shakes his head. No doubt he will want to answer that point.
John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman will have read in the notes that no commercial enterprise will be allowed in the aires. On that basis, how does his argument stand up? The operators of commercial properties will lose only people who might have used some of their facilities but not paid for anything. Anybody who wants to buy something will still have to go to them, as the aires will not have anything to buy.
Mr. Flook: I appreciate that the aires will have no commercial standing. By the same token, I look at the matter from the view of the taxpayer and those who seek to ensure that the taxpayer does not lose out. As my hon. Friend also said, there will be considerable cost in building the aires. The fact that there are motorway service areas every 20 miles or so on the M5 and the M4—just to take two motorways that, unfortunately, I know rather well—would indicate that the taxpayer will have to pay exceptionally high costs for increased motorway safety, when safety areas already exist.
Column Number: 263
I also would appreciative it if the Minister discusses the motorway aires. For considerable periods of the year, it is light for only eight or nine hours of the day in Britain. The establishment of unmanned picnic sites—picnicking is not something that most British people do in the middle of the winter—is unlikely to help reduce the number of deaths associated with fatigue on journeys at night, as drivers will be reluctant to stop at sites where refreshments such as coffee are unavailable.
5.45 pm
If the Minister addressed those points, it would be most kind of him. The best partners to work with the Government would appear to be the operators. Those who have spoken to me think that they have not been fully consulted about the road safety initiatives. No doubt the Minister has travelled extensively in Europe, where he will have seen these aires. What discussions have his civil servants had with the French authorities and elsewhere in Europe as to how they work; the costs and information associated with putting them into operation; and how they cut down on accidents and injuries?
Mr. Jamieson: The clause amends section 112 of the Highways Act 1980 to enable the Secretary of State to provide picnic sites on land adjoining or in the vicinity of motorways and to enter into arrangements with a council for the provision of facilities at such sites. The Secretary of State will also be able to provide public sanitary conveniences on land adjoining the motorway.
I should like to pick up some of the points made. The hon. Member for Christchurch made a point about fatigue on motorways, as did the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook). This is an important issue, because on motorways and the major trunk roads it is probable that up to 20 per cent. of all casualties are caused by people who are over-fatigued and fall asleep at the wheel of their vehicle. When it is a heavy vehicle the consequences can be extremely severe.
Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op): I wanted to make a contribution to the debate because I fully support the idea. In view of the length of the contributions so far, I shall keep it short. Loughborough sleep research centre has carried out a great deal of work in the area. Does the Minister agree that this is about driver choice? I thought that we all had an agenda to increase driver choice and have aire-type facilities for people such as ourselves who have young families and do not want a large motorway station, where a quick drop-off point would make an enormous difference to the number of people willing to stop more often. Research has shown that fatigue is extremely important in terms of causing fatal and other accidents on motorways, so this provision is to be welcomed rather than whinged about, which is what we seem to have done so far.
Column Number: 264
| 
