Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

A noble Lord: Or probably both, or a diplomat!

Lord Marlesford: Or both. I recommend to your Lordships to join a campaign for making cycling in London better, easier and more universal. I conclude by saying that a recent Department of Transport study found that in central and inner London journeys up to five miles are quicker by cycle.

6.22 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing this subject to us. I am not quite sure where bikes fit into car parking arrangements. I found the last contribution a slight aside.

11 Jan 1995 : Column 225

I begin my comments on car parking with our own car park at the House. I find it somewhat disconcerting that the so-called improvements which have taken place are so fascinating that, if, as I did the other night, one were there now watching anyone who has a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce, one would see that there is great difficulty in getting out of the car park due to the new turning arrangements. I have been in your Lordships' House since 1981 and in that time I have seen the car park arrangements change several times and each time for the worse. Therefore, I hope that someone will look at them again and try to produce an improved suggestion.

I have written to Black Rod on the point which I now make. It would be wise, particularly early in the morning when there is no one parked in any of the spaces, to have someone there guiding the cars of noble Lords between the white lines. One regularly arrives later in the day to find that one car is straddling two spaces, which further restricts availability.

I now move from the House to the wider subject. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seemed to be doubtful about wheel clamping. He was not in the House when we debated the subject in great depth. I for one am delighted that wheel clamping was introduced. Before that, as a magistrate, I found that it did not matter if people had pages of fines. They had no effect at all on the offenders. They simply evaded the fines because there were so many in existence. In those days enforcement and collection were pretty hopeless. It was either that or the fine was paid where it was possible to do so. However, wheel clamping changed things completely and people found it an extreme inconvenience to be clamped.

One noble Lord raised a highly relevant point; namely, that, if one collects one's car from a car park, that car park should be well lit. The same thing applies not only to car parks but also to supermarkets. I have spoken to one noble Lord in this House about this matter. I have had a report from women shopping in a well known supermarket off Ladbroke Grove who have found it very frightening to go out to a dark car park. I do not know that for myself, but I understand that that car park has now been lit. It is a most important feature that wherever one parks it should not be a frightening place. That is what is wrong with the underground car parks which have been suggested so often in this debate. With all the mugging that takes place now, people are very reluctant to go into an underground car park to collect their car. Off-street car parking has never had the same appeal as on-street parking.

I wish to correct something said by both the noble Lords, Lord Montagu and Lord Palmer, as regards the idea that revenue collected from parking can be used as part of local authority revenue and finance in general. In the debates on what became the Traffic Act 1991, I moved an amendment in the hope of bringing that provision into effect. I believed that it would be useful for those boroughs which were producing quite a surplus of revenue from car parking to put it to other uses such as social services, but the Government would not consider it. The use of revenue from car parking is very restricted and that does not apply solely to the provision

11 Jan 1995 : Column 226

of off-street car parking. The point was reached that so many car parks were produced that people were not using them. But all facilities such as footpaths, roadways and support for public transport can be supported by local authority revenue from car parking, though that money cannot be used as part of the general revenue nor can it be used in any other way. That is an important point to emphasise.

I believe very strongly that there should be international symbols which would solve the problem which we have heard about as regards French or German cars or people from different parts of the country or even London. There should be certain symbols. Ever since the introduction of wheel clamps I have been pushing for an international wheel clamp symbol. I am always being told by Ministers that they will take it up with Brussels and that they believe that there is a case for it, but that never happens.

If there were international symbols, there would be no need for maps or any of the descriptions which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to. One would have local symbols which would speak to people of all languages. I believe that it used to be, and still is, the case that as regards parking enforcement in an area one should look at the nearest lamp post. This is meant to carry a symbol detailing the hours of parking restrictions in the area. But most people have no idea where to look. I often find that the little sign on the lamp post is crumpled up and cannot be easily read. Even in areas of residential parking there is very often no indication of the days and hours on which the restriction applies.

I know the City of Westminster better than other parts of London. The hours of residential parking have become very variable. Queensway is an area which ticks all night and has done so for many years. Residents found that there was such an influx of tourists and visitors that there was no hope of parking near home. Residential parking is restricted until 10 o'clock at night. On the yellow lines the restrictions cease at 6.30 p.m. The whole purpose of a single yellow line was to provide a loading bay. If one has a heavy load one is entitled to spend a limited period at any time of day loading or unloading on the single yellow line. The double yellow line is in a different category and one is not meant to park on it at any time, but people do after 6.30 p.m. and they seem to get away with it on the whole.

There is a real problem as regards residential parking. In the City of Westminster there is greater and greater pressure for more residential parking. I find the parking very useful, residing in the area, but if I want a friend or member of the family to visit me, they cannot park in the residents' parking space if they come from elsewhere. For example, if the man from British Telecommunications or the washing machine repair man comes to carry out a service job for a resident, he is in difficulties. I believe that arrangements have to be made for providing for that kind of situation.

Sunday trading is another problem. When large shops are open on a Sunday we shall definitely need some kind of control. That point was put to me years ago by the then chairman of the John Lewis Partnership when we spoke about Sunday trading. He said to me, "You

11 Jan 1995 : Column 227

realise that we shall have to bring in all sorts of controls". In the Knightsbridge area, on the Sundays before Christmas when the shops were open, the Brompton Road was totally blocked, as were all the residential streets in the area. There were no parking controls of any sort. Westminster City Council made it clear that they could not bring them in this year in the time available because there has to be a statutory period of notice. Next year, having consulted residents, they hope to do something about the situation. My idea of what that something might be is something that would enable one's friends or visitors to park outside one's house. The question we must consider is how to control parking so as to allow vehicles to move in the street rather than be jammed solid as used to be the case. It is quite a problem.

The Royal Parks have now introduced metered or pay-and-display parking. I welcome that, but I welcome even more the recent study that has been conducted into how parking could be improved in the Royal Parks. The Royal Parks have been treated very much as free all-day car parks by commuters and visitors. People who wanted to visit and enjoy the parks with their children or dogs often had no hope of finding a parking space. That has certainly changed dramatically since the charges were introduced. During the recent cold weather, there was only a small take-up of the parking spaces available. Following consultation, the Royal Parks have announced that people will be able to buy shorter or longer parking times. Those who want to visit the parks for sport or other such reasons want to be able to park for a full four hours. That will now be allowed. The maximum was previously two hours. Those who visit the parks to walk a dog will now find it possible to pay for a shorter parking time. It seemed wrong that the minimum charge used to be fairly high.

More parking zones are now shared between the different boroughs. Reference has been made to the boundaries between the different boroughs, such as those between, say, Kensington and Westminster, or Camden and Westminster. Reciprocal arrangements between the boroughs are now working well. They allow residents of either borough to park on either side of the boundary. That is both new and an improvement. It happens in Boundary Road, where Camden and Westminster join, and in Exhibition Road. I have seen shared parking across a few boundaries and I understand that it is a growing trend.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that road works are an amazing distraction and inconvenience to everyone. Not only that—they take up a lot of space. That applies not only to road works, but, because of builders' skips, also to building works. I understand that, if a skip occupies a meter space, the full meter charge has to be paid, but, if the skip is on a yellow line, it may be possible to pay nothing although it forms just as big an obstruction as anything else.

The car parking problem will never really be solved to everyone's complete satisfaction. If you have found a good parking spot, you are delighted, but if not, you are aggrieved. In the days of no parking controls, I used to live in Bayswater and I can clearly remember that it was quite impossible for me to get in or out of my small

11 Jan 1995 : Column 228

garage because someone had always parked their car across it. When parking controls were introduced, the problem moved to Notting Hill Gate in Kensington. That area then became completely cluttered. When I represented Enfield on the Greater London Council, a large car park was built at Cockfosters so that people wanting to travel into town on the Piccadilly line could park there and travel in by tube. No one used the car park because it was easier and cheaper to park on the street. It was only when restrictions were imposed on parking on the streets at certain times of the day that people decided that it was worth trying to use the car park. Incidentally, if there was a charge for using that car park, it was a very reasonable one.

There has to be some incentive to park correctly. There must also be parking available. No one will ever be able to create enough space to solve the parking problem, but I do not think that off-street parking is the answer. So I look forward to redebating this subject many times in the years ahead, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing the matter to our attention today.

6.34 p.m.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I start by joining other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for initiating this debate on an issue of considerable interest to most people who live or work in London. The noble Lord equated his good fortune in getting this debate to a win on the National Lottery. This debate has given me the good fortune of my first opportunity to speak from the Front Bench, although I would not have chosen to do so on such an emotive subject as parking in London. However, I most certainly do not equate it to a win on the National Lottery. I have no doubt which of the two I should have preferred.

Nevertheless, it is my lot to speak from this position on the matter and I do so as the only London borough council leader who is eligible to speak in your Lordships' House. I have approached today's debate with some diffidence because, given the strength of feeling on the subject, I felt that I might be like a defendant in the dock or, more appropriately, in some danger of appearing like a Minister replying to a debate on some particularly unpopular government measure. I do not intend to fall into either trap. I readily accept that there has been some bad practice and that some London borough councils have not done all that they could or should. They may sometimes have been too inflexible. I make no excuse for that and I do not intend today to try to defend it in any way. However, I believe that such instances (which, of course, attract all the publicity) are very much the exceptions rather than the rule. Therefore, I have been relieved to hear that, on balance, all noble Lords have welcomed the changes that have been made.

The London boroughs campaigned long and hard to get their new powers. As far as I recall, all London boroughs supported that campaign. It certainly had all-party support and was supported by most organisations with an interest in the subject, including the AA. It made sense that the bodies which had to implement the restrictions, the local authorities, should

11 Jan 1995 : Column 229

also have power and the responsibility to enforce those restrictions. It was sensible to bring the two together, and that has happened.

However, there seemed an impression to start with that all that would happen would be a transfer of power from the police to the London borough councils. In fact, we have seen what is probably the most major change in parking arrangements and enforcement in London for many years. Because it was such a major change, it needed a long period of preparation. Because it needed a long period of preparation, it also needed the input of significant resources by London borough councils, many of which were extremely hard pressed at a time of ever-reducing budgets. I fear, therefore, that in some cases not enough work was put into the preparation for the takeover—with the inevitable results.

Most boroughs took over the responsibility for the enforcement of parking regulations only last July, although a few did so earlier. I believe that Wandsworth was the first, although the whole borough was not involved at the start. Given that that major change happened only seven months ago, it is not surprising that there were teething problems. Those teething problems attracted a lot of publicity, but I believe that the system generally is proving effective and beneficial remarkably quickly. In saying that, I too would like to pay tribute to the work of the Parking Committee for London, which has been of invaluable help in preparing for the introduction of the scheme and in ensuring its effective enforcement. The committee is doing an excellent job and I am glad that other noble Lords have recognised that.

It is not the parking restrictions that have changed in London—in most cases they have been there for years. What has changed is that in most cases this is the first time that those restrictions have been effectively enforced. There is no point in having parking restrictions if they are not going to be enforced. That is the whole object of the change that was brought about by the Act.

The real issue is whether that enforcement is being carried out fairly. Reference has already been made to the excellent work of the parking appeals service. I believe that since July over 2 million parking tickets have been issued by the London boroughs and I understand that less than 1.5 per cent. of them have been judged to have been issued wrongly. That is a pretty good record for a new scheme which is being introduced by new staff on behalf of the councils. On the whole, therefore, the change seems to be being introduced and enforced fairly.

One of the benefits that has already been alluded to is that it is much more accountable and that it is, and will be seen to be, much fairer to motorists. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, paid a deserved tribute to the excellent work done by the parking appeals service. His figures are a little out of date. It has now considered over 2,000 appeals, of which 60 per cent. have been upheld. That does not necessarily mean that the ticket was issued wrongly. But I hope that it will go some way towards restoring the confidence that motorists should have in a fair parking enforcement system. That will

11 Jan 1995 : Column 230

take time because any appeals system finds it hard to make value judgments. We have all probably experienced ourselves, or heard from others, mitigating circumstances. It is difficult to make value judgments when trying to assess them.

There have been many results from proper and effective enforcement. There has been an increase in the number of grievances felt by motorists who have "always parked here" and who have started to receive a parking ticket. Rather than feel aggrieved, they should be grateful that they have got away with it for so many years. Now they are not doing so.

One of the popular misconceptions held by those motorists, which has been repeated in your Lordships' House, is that the new system of parking enforcement is some sort of money-making machine for London borough councils and that they are strongly tempted to profiteer from it. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, correct that impression. She is of course right, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that, first, the income from the parking schemes has to be used to pay for the enforcement, and effective enforcement is expensive; and, secondly, any surplus that arises from such parking schemes is ring-fenced. It cannot be used, rightly or wrongly—I share the noble Baroness's reservations about that—for any other local government purpose, such as social services. It must be used in connection with parking provision, whether on or off street. It can be used to improve public transport. I would say to those who feel that it is a money-making device, but who also call for better parking provision and better public transport, that this is one of the few opportunities available to local authorities to find the resources to do just those things for which we are calling.

The other result of better enforcement is that it has served to highlight the distressingly large number of unnecessary and wrong parking restrictions. They were not noticed before because they were not enforced before. In most cases they have existed for many years, but no one bothered about them. They were ignored. The traffic wardens and the police took no notice, and they just continued. That has been highlighted. What we need now is not a change in the system but for each London borough to carry out a major review of its parking arrangements and restrictions. Most, if not all, London boroughs—certainly mine—are doing that. We have naturally and rightly had to wait for the new system to settle down, but we now are all, or should be, starting on a major review of our parking restrictions and enforcement.

I want to say just a few words about the review process. The most important part of that process is the informal consultation that needs to take place with motorists and their representatives and also, and most particularly, with local residents. Most parking in London takes place in residential areas. The residents who live on those streets have at least as much interest in that because of their own or their visitors' cars as do other outside organisations. The review process needs to take into account the interests of local traders, especially shopkeepers, local businesses and local employers. The key to achieving an effective parking scheme is a good,

11 Jan 1995 : Column 231

effective, informal consultation process before any changes are drawn up. That is where the time needs to be taken and where it is best spent. Having determined through that consultation what changes are required, they need to be implemented quickly.

One of the most difficult things that I have to explain as a council leader is why we go through a long process of agreeing what we want—everyone agrees—and then it takes six to nine months to go through the lengthy legal process in order to implement the changes. My first request to the Minister is to look at how we can speed up the implementation process once the parking authorities have agreed what they want to do.

I want to say just a brief word about pavement parking. It has not been much mentioned today, but it is an important issue. Pavement parking in London has been illegal for getting on for 10 years, but few London borough councils were previously doing anything to enforce that law. Now they are. It is more effective, and it has caused a great deal of concern. In most cases the ban on pavement parking is necessary and desirable for reasons which will be well known to your Lordships. Nevertheless, councils have the authority to exempt roads or parts of roads where pavement parking is clearly necessary. Again, too many London borough councils have not done that, and now need quickly to catch up.

I want to mention a few things that we need. I have mentioned a shorter implementation process. I join strongly with other noble Lords who said that we need much better signage. The regulations governing signage for parking restrictions are those laid down by the Department of Transport and not invented by London borough councils. Those regulations require, for instance, that the sign which shows which hours operate in any particular zone or borough are erected at the entrance to the zone only. Repeater signs are needed. I agree that the present system in London is confusing. We do not want a uniform system for London. That would be absurd because the needs across London are so different. We require much better signage so that motorists and others can see clearly what they are and are not allowed to do.

The parking arrangements need much better publicity. The appeals system needs much better publicity, although it is already working well. The Department of Transport has some part to play in achieving that. The Parking Committee for London and the London boroughs have done much themselves and will continue to do so, but we need more active support from the Department of Transport in trying to achieve that.

One abuse that I was asked to mention is what is called "drive-aways". That upsets my residential constituents considerably. It happens most often at service garages where vehicles are parked illegally on the streets. I know that in some cases someone is employed to keep an eye out for the parking attendant or traffic warden. As soon as one is seen that person goes out and drives the vehicle round and round the block until the attendant has gone and then the driver returns. We need a fair and effective system for dealing with such abuse. Residents who are caught for parking because they cannot spend their whole time looking out

11 Jan 1995 : Column 232

of their front windows resent that behaviour. We may need to have a system similar to that which applies for catching speeding motorists.

I want to conclude in the same way as did the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in introducing the debate, and say that we cannot debate parking in isolation from more general transport issues. One of the results of effective enforcement of parking restrictions in London has been to demonstrate that there is not enough space to park on the streets, and there never will be. Any measures to increase parking will only add to the amount of traffic on our roads. There is an increasing view that that needs to be tackled.

We need to judge the debate in terms of a much greater emphasis on the provision of public transport; on making it convenient; and, above all, on making it reliable. That too can be helped by reducing traffic congestion. We need greater investment in public transport, something for which we on these Benches so often call. We need stronger disincentives for commuters who bring their cars into work unnecessarily. I was interested to read a CBI survey which talked about the need to reduce traffic congestion but which also said that four-fifths of its members felt that a company car was an essential part of a benefits package. There is a necessary conflict in that. We cannot have both. We need to produce disincentives for car use in London. Planners can and increasingly are playing an important part in that. Planning guidance has some part to play in determining parking standards which perhaps will not make it so easy in future for people to park their cars.

There is an interesting scheme in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham which is looking at new criteria and implementing new criteria for parking provision. It relates not so much to the number of cars likely to be there but the access to the area to which the planning application relates and access to public transport. That may or may not work, but it is the sort of imaginative thinking that we need.

Parking arrangements in London are already proving to be effective. When the teething problems are solved and the next review has taken place, they will prove to be very effective. We do not need more major changes to parking arrangements in central London; we need a major change to car usage in London.

6.50 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I must apologise for the state of my voice which, of course, will be in marked contrast to the strength of my case. It may be that the Minister will find himself in exactly the reverse situation. I shall listen, as I am sure will all noble Lords, with great interest to his response to the many interesting points which have arisen in the course of this short debate.

Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute immediately to my noble friend Lord Dubs for initiating the debate. My noble friend had a fine reputation in the House of Commons and also as the executive director of the Refugee Council, where he earned many justifiable plaudits, and I am very proud to be the chairman of that

11 Jan 1995 : Column 233

organisation. He has now shown himself very clearly as an expert in this field. I hope that I shall cover some of the points that he raised in the course of my remarks.

I welcome also to our transport debates—for how long it will continue, I do not know—the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He was in another place with me for some period of time. As he has rightly said, he is a council leader. That is not exactly unique because there is a county council leader, but the noble Lord has put forward a convincing and vigorous defence of the role of London boroughs in relation to the implementation of the Act. I hope that he has enjoyed himself on this occasion and will continue to do so.

He is right to pay tribute to the Parking Committee for London. It has done an excellent job. Effective enforcement was another point to which he referred. Of course, that is the key to making progress in that field. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred to the need for a coach park. That is a compelling point too.

The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, challenged me to state my position on the need to end the use of Horse Guards Parade as a parking space. Speaking from the Front Bench, I must not make up policy on the hoof. He will understand that I shall undertake to examine his proposals with great care; to examine the cost implications; and then to consult with my honourable friend Mr. Gordon Brown. All that will be undertaken with great assiduity and care. I shall write to him on the matter in several years' time—perhaps two-and-a-half years' time. However, the noble Lord put forward a very important case for cyclists and cycling and I share his views in relation to that. I have supported his arguments on this subject on previous occasions in this House.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised an interesting question about international symbols for wheel clamping. That is a very interesting and excellent idea. I wonder whether she is prepared to offer a prize for suitable entries to a competition in that connection. One could think of many symbols which might be interesting. Perhaps the most attractive would be the fine—what you have to pay when you collect your car. The idea which the noble Baroness put forward of parking for limited periods on single yellow lines was another excellent one. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Many years ago the famous American comedian and commentator Will Rogers prescribed his solution to traffic problems. He said, essentially, that one should enact legislation which would have the effect of allowing only cars which were fully paid for to use the city streets. He anticipated that that would make traffic so scarce that the city streets would be able to be converted into children's playgrounds. I do not know whether that is something to which we should look but the Government chose, uncharacteristically wisely, to travel down a somewhat different route in terms of mitigating parking problems in London. I welcome what has happened in relation to the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Like my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I believe that the key to the most effective action is the provision of a much more efficient, reliable and safer public transport system. Without that, we are

11 Jan 1995 : Column 234

really tinkering with the problems of parking in London. I believe that it is in that area that the Government have been found most wanting. Therefore, I fear that, unless that situation is remedied—and I do not believe this Government have the will to remedy it—the position will continue to deteriorate.

Within that vital caveat, I accept that the 1991 Act has led to considerable improvements in enforcement of the parking regulations since the Act came into force in July. There is no doubt that there has been better compliance. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the appeal system has operated fairly successfully and the fact is that councils are much more accountable and are able to provide a speedier response, because of that accountability, to inquiries which arise which affect the interests of motorists. From that point of view, it is a much better system than the regime which existed before.

But we are still at an embryonic stage in the development of those policies. Therefore, it is very timely for us to be able to consider the problems which have already arisen in relation to the scheme. It is much better to be able to address them now than to leave them festering and to do very little about them. It is appropriate that we in this House should be concerned with the causes of frustration and irritation to which some of the anomalies give rise.

Among those to whom we have offered plaudits, I welcome the role of the Automobile Association, which has pursued assiduously some of those problems with the boroughs, with the Parking Committee for London and with the Minister. I should like to touch on some of those points which have not necessarily been raised in the debate in order to elicit from the Minister what has been his response to those points.

A conditioned precedent for establishing special parking areas—this was set out in the parking guidance issued by the Secretary of State to the London boroughs—was that the boroughs should have undertaken a proper review of policies and orders to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State. The AA survey suggests that there has been a considerable failure to ensure that that was done in a number of instances. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether that assertion is accurate. If so, can the noble Viscount say why authority was then given to local authorities to implement their schemes in cases where reviews had not been adequately undertaken?

There is a further point in relation to that specific aspect which I should like to address to the Minister. What steps will he now take to ensure that any recalcitrant London boroughs do fulfil the obligation which is absolutely critical in terms of being able to review unnecessary or unfair regulations? They are important points. There are still too many instances—and that is plain from what has been said in the debate—where restrictions are in force which, essentially, may not be needed. There is no doubt that small traders feel a sense of grievance. In certain cases, they believe that their trade has been prejudiced simply because no short-stay parking facilities are provided and that is injurious to their business.

11 Jan 1995 : Column 235

I should now like to build on what my noble friend Lord Dubs said earlier. Different, and sometimes even contradictory, policies apply across the metropolis in relation to penalty charges. The AA cited a specific case where a borough was permitting the issue of penalty charge notices which were never attached to the vehicles in question or even given to the drivers, although that was in breach of the 1991 Act. As a result, an extraordinary state of affairs can arise. Motorists who are totally ignorant of the penalty charge until the notice is actually received in the post—usually about a month later—then find that they are denied the option of paying a reduced level of penalty charge. That is grotesquely unfair and, if the AA is right, it is a situation which needs to be remedied.

Another instance cited by the AA suggested that some boroughs were using ticket processing contractors to vet motorists' initial pleas against the issue of a penalty charge. Again, that is in defiance of the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Of course, it must be the officers of the borough, and they alone, who are vested with that responsibility. I should like to hear the Minister's confirmation or denial of that allegation by the AA. If it is true, I should like to know what he is doing to avoid any recurrence.

A major point which emerged during the debate was the need for regulations that are applied to be properly signed and marked on the street. I endorse that concern. Differing regulations cause great confusion. The case of Lincoln's Inn Fields, where there is a boundary between Camden and Westminster, has been prayed in aid. There are different parking times, especially in the evenings. The area is much used by tourists who go to the theatre and the opera. They assume that parking restrictions end at 6 p.m. in the evening. But they could be sadly wrong. Because of their lack of knowledge about the local situation, I believe that they could harbour a sense of grievance if they have to pay a heavy penalty. Better notification of the system is essential.

Can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State will authorise the department to carry out a review to ensure that signs outlining parking regulations are provided in sufficient number and are comprehensive? Having raised the point, I do not want to assert that standard hours should apply on all restrictions across London. I believe that that would be wholly inappropriate, because there are different circumstances. I shall do no more than merely allude to the point.

There has also been considerable debate this evening about wheel clamping and towing away. I believe that the noble Baroness raised the issue, as indeed did my noble friend, of the location of some of the pounds to which vehicles are towed. They are often situated in inaccessible areas. I know that to my certain knowledge. I have had my car towed away—of course, always grotesquely unfairly. The Minister is totally unused to that state of affairs because he now has someone to drive him. However, it is unacceptable that so many of those pounds are located in inaccessible places.

It is not just the pound itself which is frequently unlit. That is not always the major problem; indeed, it is often the murky surrounding streets which are badly lit. I am sure that many women find it very uncongenial to have

11 Jan 1995 : Column 236

to collect their vehicles which have been towed away at night. That anxiety needs to be addressed. It is really an invitation to muggers to concentrate on such areas. Does the Minister agree that such a situation exists and, if so, what does he propose to do about it, especially if he is satisfied that his own parking guidance in that regard is being ignored?

The parking guidance recommends that payment by credit card should be possible—in other words, that people should be able to give details of their credit cards over the telephone to the authorities concerned. Is it true that some boroughs are ignoring that and insisting upon personal visits by motorists to the pounds or the parking shops in order to pay the fee for the release of the clamp? It is unsatisfactory that that should apply. Further, in the light of the allegation that some boroughs have not yet signed up to the TRACE service, which is able to provide the necessary information, is the Minister satisfied that all boroughs are giving motorists the necessary help to recover vehicles which are clamped or towed away?

I turn finally to the question of inadequate car-parking spaces. A parking space was defined by someone as being an unoccupied space about seven feet wide and 15 feet long, situated next to the curb and usually on the most difficult side of the street to get to. It is the place where you take your car to have little dents put into the bumpers. Well, particular difficulties are being experienced—indeed, I believe that the noble Baroness raised the issue —with residential parking. It is particularly acute in areas where large houses have been converted into flats and there is insufficient accommodation for cars. Where permits are given, the choice of roads for residential car parking sometimes seems to be capricious and arbitrary. That gives rise to a good deal of apprehension, because people have to walk for fairly long distances at night from the place where they park their car to where they live. It is a matter which causes me concern. I live in just such an area in Hampstead. My wife constantly says that Hampstead has simply become a glorified car park. At the very least, councils should provide better lighting in such areas.

It would, perhaps, be very much better if the police were to concentrate rather more on carrying out surveillance of such areas so as to give some reassurance to people, especially women, who are returning home at night at about 10.30 p.m. or, on these dark evenings, much earlier. There have been too many instances in my area of people being mugged. It is the cause of much apprehension among many people. I hope the Minister may turn his attention to that issue as well. I think this has been an extremely helpful debate. Like others, I once again pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs for having enabled us to cover this terrain.

7.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, first of all I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on having initiated this debate. I believe it has been comprehensive and very wide-ranging and a great many points have been raised. It was with more than my

11 Jan 1995 : Column 237

normal caution that I approached handling this debate this evening as almost every motorist I have ever met has at some stage in his motoring career had a grievance about parking. Indeed I was considerably moved by the tales of distress of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with regard to his absent car. I am sure that it was in exactly the appropriate circumstances that that errant vehicle was removed from our roads.

As I said, a debate like this has covered an extraordinarily wide range of points and I believe it has been extremely constructive. I shall start by outlining the Government's approach to parking in London and then cover as many of the detailed points that have been raised this evening as I can.

Illegal and indeed inconsiderate parking is probably one of the single biggest causes of congestion in London. London Transport estimates that about half of all delays to buses are caused by illegal parking. That is an extraordinary statistic. The cost to all of us is enormous, whether we are on the delayed bus or caught in the traffic jam caused by one or two badly parked vehicles.

Many yellow lines and other restrictions have built up over the years and indeed some of those no longer have relevance. Where they are no longer needed they should be removed. But where they are needed they should be enforced. That is a strong theme that has emerged from the debate this evening. Otherwise a motorist who, for example, parks illegally close to a junction can all too easily create extreme congestion and bring delays to many other users in that area simply as a result of the bad and inconsiderate parking of one solitary vehicle.

The provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which decriminalised many parking offences, have enabled us to put in place a completely new local authority parking enforcement regime which has greatly increased the resources available for parking enforcement in London. I welcome the general support that has been expressed this evening for the provisions of that Act and for the success which it has had in improving the parking situation. The Act enables the London boroughs to designate special parking areas, in which they are responsible for enforcing both permitted parking and the yellow line parking controls. This system began in July last year. By this spring, all boroughs will be enforcing the parking controls in their area, except on the 315-mile red route network, where enforcement remains the responsibility of the police and their traffic wardens. I think that answers one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on his first contribution from his Front Bench. I agree with him as regards his observations on the better enforcement that has resulted from the new Act. It is fair to say that over the years many motorists have come to expect to get away with illegal parking. Often this was because the parking controls themselves were unduly restrictive. This is now changing. Under the new system we are seeking to ensure that both the restrictions and the enforcement are fair and consistent. Under the new arrangements, for instance, motorists who feel they have been unfairly treated now have recourse to an efficient

11 Jan 1995 : Column 238

and simple appeals system. In the first instance they can make representations to the local authority but if they are still unhappy with the decision they can take the matter to the impartial adjudication system run by the Parking Committee for London. I wish to take this opportunity to echo the support which has been expressed around the Chamber this evening for that body and for the impartial procedure which is provided. I believe that has been a great help.

Having paid tribute to the work of the Parking Committee for London and to the committee's parking director and his staff, I wish to say a few words about their work in establishing the adjudication system and the tracing system for cars that have been towed away. That is vital work and they carry out much other good work. I believe there has generally been a good reaction to that work.

Many noble Lords concentrated their remarks on revenues that are being generated. The new parking enforcement system allows the local authorities to retain the revenue from penalty charges imposed on those infringing parking restrictions in order—as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, clearly said—to finance the system. While the charges should be set at levels which should enable the system to be self-financing, local authorities should not use the charges to raise revenue or as a means of local taxation. I can assure the House that any surpluses that are created can only be used for transport related expenditure such as public transport or road improvements.

Much has also been said about the new system of enforcement and the new type of attendants. I think it is fair to say that the new enforcement system is still in its infancy. But there will shortly be around 1,100 local authority parking attendants patrolling in London in addition to the 800 or so police traffic wardens. New technology such as hand-held computers is now widely in use and most of the boroughs are contracting out the work to the private sector on the basis of measured performance outputs. I believe that this new type of attendant has been largely responsible for the improved enforcement of the system. I believe that is an extremely important aspect. Improved enforcement has meant that motorists are now less willing to believe they will be able to get away with illegal parking. We believe that for the future there may be scope for extending local authorities' responsibilities, and the use of this new technology is likely to be developed further.

As has been mentioned, the Government have issued statutory guidance to local authorities under the 1991 Act asking them to review the parking restrictions on their roads. The authorities are asked to consider how much kerb space they believe it will be desirable to control; how much of that space should be given over to parking, for what purposes and times and at what charges. They have also been asked how much space should be covered by parking restrictions, the times when the restrictions should operate and the penalties and other sanctions that should be applied in the case of infringements.

The review should consider the scope of all existing regulations applying throughout a borough and whether their continuation would be inconsistent with the new

11 Jan 1995 : Column 239

parking policies. The authorities should use the charges, controls and restrictions to balance the supply and demand for kerb and road space in the light of local needs and circumstances and the need to produce sustained improvements in traffic flow, safety and in environmental conditions.

Another area which has brought considerable comment in your Lordships' House this evening has been that of signing. As part of the review that I mentioned earlier local authorities should also ensure that the signing of the restrictions is clear and appropriate. One of the commonest complaints from motorists—a number of noble Lords highlighted this, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and, I believe, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—is how difficult it is to discover exactly what the controls are. More and indeed better information on parking can go a great deal of the way to reducing motorists' frustration with the system. The local authorities and the Parking Committee for London have both made significant efforts in this area and we should look to them to develop this further. I urge them to be as consistent as possible and where my department has a role to play in approving non-standard signs we will seek to be as helpful to motorists as we can.

Our guidance also addresses the question of where parking should be provided. Of course, this is both a transport issue and a planning issue. Local authority parking policies have an important and direct bearing on the levels of traffic attracted to an area. They therefore have a crucial role to play in managing traffic, relieving congestion and improving road safety and the environment. That is why noble Lords who have said that the issue of parking is intrinsically linked to traffic flow and many other transport issues in London are absolutely right.

Individual local authority policies will also affect traffic in other areas. Collectively they will affect overall traffic levels in London. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes remarked that if one introduces very restrictive arrangements in one area one is liable to make it very difficult to move in another.

In our recent planning policy guidance (PPG 13) we have issued guidance to the local authorities that among other matters they should adopt reduced requirements for parking at locations which have good access to other means of travel and should ensure that parking requirements in general are kept to the operational minimum. A classic example is my own Department of Transport. When we move to our new building the amount of parking available will be reduced by some 90 per cent.

We look to the local authorities to develop parking policies which have regard to the character and needs of the local area, the quality and accessibility of public transport, and the particular needs of people with disabilities. The policies should in particular make suitable provision for local residents, shops and businesses, and should discourage car use when that can be justified by road conditions and public transport facilities. It should always be remembered that in some cases people with a disability find it much easier to use their own transport. The authorities should use the

11 Jan 1995 : Column 240

controls and restrictions to address specific safety and environmental issues and to maintain road capacity at certain key locations.

One aspect of this evening's debate which has surprised me is that little or no mention has been made of the red route network. I mentioned earlier the fact that the red route network will be 315 miles long. Under the 1991 Act the Office of the Traffic Director for London has been established to implement that network. We have given him the objective of having it operational by the year 2000. The traffic director is taking a completely fresh look at parking needs along those roads.

The aim of the red routes is to reduce the impact of congestion and improve the movement of traffic on the main routes so that people and goods can move around London more easily, more reliably and more safely. The red route programme encourages a balanced, thought-out approach to both business and residential parking.

I should stress that red routes do not mean fewer parking spaces. On the contrary, on the pilot red route which runs from Archway to Islington more than 600 legal free parking spaces have been created where none existed before.

Red routes represent the most comprehensive traffic management initiative which has ever been taken in London. Where parking controls are necessary they will be strictly enforced, with stiff penalties to deter non-compliance. They will be supported by a programme of associated traffic management measures. That will help to make better use of existing roads and improve the quality of service they provide. Reducing the effects of congestion will help to ease traffic flows, improve journey times and reliability, and draw traffic out of unsuitable residential and other local roads to reduce casualties.

We believe that safety will be a major benefit of the red route system. We believe that the red route system will cut the present waste in human and economic resources and will help to reduce pollution, which is exacerbated by stop-start conditions.

Providing special help for the efficient movement of buses will improve the attractiveness of their services and contribute to the expansion of London's public transport system. Making conditions better for pedestrians and cyclists and making special provision for people with disabilities will help the most vulnerable road users.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether we could speed up the implementation process for traffic regulation orders. We are currently consulting on revised procedural regulations with a view to simplifying those procedures. I take the noble Lord's important point.

My noble friend Lord Montagu asked about coach parking. I can inform him that our guidance to local authorities urges them to ensure that there is appropriate provision for coach parking. The key issue is to ensure that coaches do not park in unsuitable places, as we sometimes see in areas not so far from where your Lordships are this evening.

11 Jan 1995 : Column 241

A number of other questions were asked, but I should like to respond to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, in relation to cycling. I am very pleased that he recognised the action of my noble friend the Secretary of State, who announced in December the go-ahead for the London cycle network project in response to the package bid submitted by all 33 London local authorities earlier in the year. The Government have allocated some £3 million for the next financial year. That is the first instalment of support for what will be an expanding cycle network development programme.

Of course there are wide and numerous benefits from increased cycle usage. Those people who will use the cycles will have quicker journeys in inner and central London. Removing cars will provide other benefits for everybody else. A number of environmental, health and wide-ranging benefits can be produced by increasing the use of cycles. I hope that my noble friend Lord Marlesford fully recognises the importance of the contribution that we have made to ensuring that the cycle network goes ahead.

My noble friend Lord Montagu and my noble friend Lady Gardner raised a very important aspect of policy on this matter relating to street works. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 is aimed at improving the way street works are carried out by the utilities. The Act provides for prior notice to be given to the Highway Authority of all works and a statutory duty for all those concerned to co-ordinate the proposed work. I recognise that it can be frustrating when one is caught in congestion behind road works.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised a very specific point about the availability or otherwise of a map or leaflet showing where parking is available in London. Maps are already available which show parking restrictions and where parking is available. These are produced for central and inner London and can be obtained at bookshops. The Parking Committee for London has co-operated fully in the production of those maps. I shall be delighted to obtain one and send it to the noble Lord for his perusal.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked some detailed questions. He asked who was responsible for policing zigzags. Currently the restrictions are enforced by the police. The provisions in the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill will allow local authorities to enforce them in addition.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a point about whether cars which break down are liable for penalties. The simple answer is yes. Motorists who break down within these zones infringe the restrictions and will be liable to receive a penalty charge notice. However, the important point is that in practice the adjudication system will consider any extenuating circumstances and, where appropriate, cancel the charge notice.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a detailed point about allegations that ticket contractors are carrying out the appeals procedure rather than that being operated in the correct way. We do not have any hard evidence of such practices. It is our view that the

11 Jan 1995 : Column 242

appeals should be dealt with under the correct procedures by the councils themselves. There is also the additional appeals procedure which I mentioned earlier.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that the debate on parking restrictions, parking availability, and many other issues concerning the availability of parking in London has been extremely important. We have heard a wide range of valuable contributions. I should like to conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part, and indeed to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his contribution.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page