| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount means £55 per household, not £55 million.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, £55 per household totals £1.2 billion a year. We will consider whether the Bill should include statutory powers of arbitration to avoid any disputes arising from the operation of the permit scheme.
If there is one aspect of driving that infuriates us all, it is the uneven and sometimes dishonest way in which the public are treated by those responsible for the administration of parking. Wardens are often driven by commercial considerations—simply greed—to catch as many motorists as they can, because they are under pressure from above to meet quota targets that
affect their pay and bonuses. Widely ranging practices are currently applied to decriminalised parking enforcement contracts from one council to another. We all have our own horror stories. I had a recent one when I tried to take on Westminster Council over improper clamping. I failed miserably; I suddenly realised that my appeal had no chance of succeeding, however much I was in the right.The Government have conceded that there is a problem. On Report in another place, the Minister there offered that his department would issue guidance to all local authorities. That was very welcome; we must give him credit and welcome that here. However, I must tell the noble Lord that we will require to see at least draft guidance before the Bill leaves this House, otherwise we might be tempted to amend it here.
We will want to ensure that local authorities show some consistency. Will the Minister explain why only 80 local authorities outside London have acquired decriminalised parking enforcement powers under the Road Traffic Act 1991? I would also like to look at the law governing rogue private clampers, if I may call them that, who often hold the innocent hostage, demanding exorbitant fees. Their business seems to be not parking enforcement but extortion, and there is no appeal apart from a rather long, complicated and expensive process through the court.
The Bill will allow Transport for London to co-ordinate traffic management between the boroughs and other traffic authorities. We approve, and the Bill also allows for a single London-wide permit scheme to cover all types of works in the street. However, we are concerned with the clause that allows a traffic director to be appointed to intervene if the boroughs fail. On what basis exactly would they fail, and against what criteria will that failure be judged? I would be interested if the Minister could help us on that.
I understand that there is no requirement for local authorities to publish their policies and objectives for road management. Can the Minister confirm this? Does he think that they should publish their objectives and policies?
There is much that should be better co-ordinated in London. A simple example is that every London borough has its own gritting policy. Some do it well while some do it badly. Has the noble Lord's department considered issuing guidance on such policies to ensure that pavements and roads are made safe and kept free of ice and snow?
The new network management duty is crucial and I understand that the Government plan to issue guidance. We will want to consider whether Transport for London should be given the power to issue supplementary guidance for the capital.
I turn briefly to the issue of bus lanes. Different councils have different policies for bus lanes, and this subject was debated at length in another place. Bus lanes operate at different times and varying rules. While it is clear that we need bus lanes during the rush hours, do we need to keep them almost empty for the remainder of the day and night? I think that we should explore a sensible policy on their use.
We will also want to debate why this Government feel so strongly about not moving closer to Europe when they consider speed limits. Why do we not operate the same speed limits as some of our European neighbours? Does the Minister think that our drivers behave worse on our motorways than do our continental neighbours on theirs? The argument that the Government have always used is that we have a better safety record. However, does that really stand up to scrutiny? Can the Minister provide us with a breakdown of figures for road accidents showing not only what they are generally, but also making a comparison between incidents on motorways, ordinary roads and minor rural roads? I think that those statistics may change the argument somewhat.
I have touched on some of the issues that we will all get to know well. But let me end with a plea for the British motorist. Most drivers do not use the roads for pleasure; they do so out of necessity. We need to make sure that this Bill makes life better for them.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am pleased to join in what I suspect will be a general welcome for this Bill because there is no doubt that there is much public irritation at road delays and congestion caused by what are seen as unnecessary street works.
I should have thought that few people could take exception to the proposal to establish traffic officers to manage traffic on the roads, to monitor the condition of roads and to report on defects and problems. Equally sensible are the new duties to be placed on each traffic authority to manage its roads in a way that secures the movement of traffic and to co-ordinate the digging up of roads by utilities and local authorities. There is nothing more irritating than to see one lot of road works undertaken by one utility being followed immediately by those of another.
However, I do have a number of concerns about the Bill which I think are more of emphasis than substance, and it may be that my noble friend will be able to answer some of these when he responds. We shall certainly be able to come back to them in Committee. The most important of my concerns centres on road safety, and I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I am proud indeed to follow my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who is my distinguished predecessor in that role.
I can understand why the Government would like to speed up the clearance and reopening of highways after an accident, and that is obviously what lies behind the transfer of a range of traffic management powers from the police to Highways Agency officers, including responding to road incidents. But there is a worry that an apparently streamlined procedure could delay matters, because if it appears that a criminal offence has been committed in the cause of an accident, the police would have to become involved alongside the Highways Agency people. The temptation to clear a crash site and get traffic moving at the risk of losing important evidence always needs to be resisted. Whether the Bill needs to be amended to take account of this concern is something we can look at later.
Looking at Clause 16(1), it is fine for the Bill to place a duty on local traffic authorities to secure,
- "the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority's road network",
I also hope that the Bill will not in any way be used to weaken the important road safety initiatives which have had such an effect in reducing casualty figures, particularly in London. Traffic calming, for example, is an extremely effective way of saving lives and preventing injuries. The 20 miles per hour zones in London have achieved huge reductions in the numbers killed and seriously injured in those areas where they have been introduced. These include 61 per cent fewer child pedestrian casualties, 60 per cent fewer child cyclists killed and seriously injured, 47 per cent fewer child car occupants killed and seriously injured, a cut of 50 per cent in the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed and seriously injured, and a reduction of 68 per cent in the number of motorcyclist casualties.
Those figures provide the answer to local authorities such as the London Borough of Barnet, which is adopting fanatically pro-motorist policies. Perhaps the noble Viscount approves of them, but I do not think many other people do. These measures involve ripping out sensible traffic-calming and safety measures such as speed humps and bus and cycle lanes and allowing pavement parking.
In that context, I commend to your Lordships the very helpful brief which I, and I imagine other noble Lords have been sent, by the Royal National Institute of the Blind. On pavement parking, it makes the point that illegally parked cars block the footway, causing people to knock into them and force pedestrians on to the road to get past them—a dangerous and frightening experience for visually impaired people. The RNIB would like the law changed so there is a universal presumption against pavement parking, as there is in London.
A further area which requires clarification is the new network management duty. This is obviously a crucial element in the Bill, and it will be necessary for the Government to publish rather more guidance on this than has appeared so far. From what my noble friend said earlier, I am sure this will be forthcoming. But I wonder whether particular concern has been taken of the special requirements of London in this regard.
On Tuesday I was one of a number of Members of this House who visited the London Traffic Control Centre which Transport for London runs in
partnership with the Metropolitan Police. Apart from being the engine room of the congestion charge—which, happily, continues to have a beneficial effect on the volume and movement of traffic entering central London—the control centre monitors congestion through the use of 1,000 closed circuit television feeds. It has the potential to spot congestion building up and then do something about it.In common with virtually everyone else, TfL supports the Bill. It does, however, believe that the Mayor of London should be empowered to give additional guidance to London authorities in relation to strategic roads. This, I suspect, is a matter to which we shall want to return in Committee. We might also look at the possibility of establishing in London a single system for the granting of permits to carry out street works.
The needs of local authorities in relation to digging up the roads are pretty similar to the needs of the utilities. It would certainly seem to make sense for there to be a uniform approach, perhaps, as TfL suggests, in the hands of the borough traffic manager, provided that he or she is independent of the highways department.
I gather that the utilities are worried that the Bill would allow different permit systems to be developed by the various traffic authorities, thus imposing a significant extra burden on them. One way round this, as far as London is concerned, is to have a single system in the capital.
Finally, I promised my noble friend Lord Puttnam, as he cannot be with us today, that I would raise one issue on his behalf, which he intends should be the subject of an amendment in Committee. This concerns the closure of roads for the purpose of filming. His amendment would allow local authorities specifically to classify film as an event, by amending the Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Act 1994, thereby giving them the power to close roads to allow filming to take place. My noble friend has kindly provided me with a comprehensive briefing paper on the matter, but it would be better if we waited until Committee before going into detail.
In essence, the aim of the Bill is to achieve a consistency of approach across the country. However, that is an issue for Committee, along with a number of other matters, which I am sure will be raised at that stage. I look forward to further discussion and, meanwhile, wish the Bill well.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, I wish to comment on the Bill with particular regard to its impact on London. I probably should declare various interests—I was born a Londoner, I am a Londoner, and I was the founder and am now president of London First.
Business is particularly concerned about the inadequacies of most of London's transport, but congestion is a particular problem, as we have heard, not only because of the cost impact but because the
variability of journey times makes any matters such as planning meetings impossible. The situation has improved with congestion charging in central London.If London's economy is to prosper—and without the prosperity of London the UK will suffer—an effective road system is vital. We could bore each other with statistics, so I shall give the House only a couple. For example, the 16 per cent worsening in average off-peak speeds in inner London during the 20 years ending 2002, compared with the 31 per cent improvement in morning off-peak speeds that took place on red routes in the second half of the 1990s, shows that effective road management can improve matters.
It is important that we do not talk about "cars versus public transport"—85 per cent of commuters to central London use public transport. Efficient use of roads is essential, not only for cars but for the emergency services, deliveries and buses. As we know, London, like other cities, cannot build its way out of the road congestion problem. To that extent, I welcome the approach of the Bill, because it attempts to manage the existing road network better. Of course there are some details to be examined, to which I shall return.
We have just heard about Transport for London's traffic control centre near Victoria Station, which I also visited earlier this week. There, one can see at a glance how complex the problem is, both in terms of traffic flow monitoring and road works systems. One is also struck by the determination and professionalism of the people there who work with the boroughs and the police to achieve improvements. Many of the computer systems that they are examining are just about beginning to work. They look as if they are heading in the right direction—let us hope that they make it.
With 35 different highway authorities in London, any one of them can cause havoc by interacting badly with another—whether it is TfL or one borough with another borough. The Bill's encouragement of greater co-operation and co-ordination is essential for both road works and traffic flow. We must discuss in Committee whether the balance between the boroughs and TfL is correct and whether TfL is being given slightly too passive a role, although that is an emotive subject. Local residential roads and high streets are best managed by local knowledge of the boroughs. However, London needs a single authority to manage its main roads. The problem is where to draw that line and how to distinguish a main road, in terms of being strategic, from a local road. The current position is not satisfactory.
The fact that the Bill lays the basis for attempting to define a wider strategic road network in London is welcome. I shall not name the few boroughs that deliberately discriminate against traffic on main roads by setting traffic lights to give more time to minor roads. They are probably trying to benefit the people that vote for them, who live on minor roads.
Under the Bill, TfL will be able to stop that kind of interference. The question is: is that realignment enough? Co-operation between TfL and the boroughs is obviously vital. It cannot be only one-way co-operation
and needs to be based on a more coherent strategy for managing the strategic road network in London. TfL has not yet produced such a strategy. Once it does, the Bill should give it fractionally more powers than those being proposed to avoid deadlock with the boroughs. The Bill should require boroughs to implement the strategy, and it should give TfL powers to ensure that its implementation of the strategic network which are similar to those which existed for the operation of red routes.I also welcome powers in the Bill to co-ordinate street works and set time limits. If what currently happens were not deadly serious, it would be a joke. The comment that this should extend to the roadworks carried out by highway authorities is right. It is critical to avoid digging up parallel routes. Different authorities may control river crossings, for example, and it would be crazy if there were no co-ordination. We all know examples of that.
Should there be a single scheme for Londoners so that utilities do not have to provide 35 authorities in different formats of input? From reading the 200 pages of text I was given, naively having asked to be briefed on the Bill from all types of sources, I was not clear whether the penalties would be hypothecated back to transport. Clearly, TfL fines will come back to a transport authority, but could they be spent in another way in the boroughs? I do not know what happens outside London but I believe that the fines should be hypothecated.
A controversial issue that is not covered in the Bill is lorry control. A London-wide scheme was introduced by the GLC in the mid-1980s banning the movement of HGVs in London at night and weekends—unless a specific permit had been issued. But the world has moved on since then. The M25 has stopped many lorries driving through London on their journey from the north and the Midlands to the southern ports. Lorries are now quieter and have fewer emissions than was the case 20 years ago, although I am sure they could do better. So should we be looking at a lorry ban? The ALG is doing so, but it seems to be doing so slowly. Is this costing business—and therefore all of us—money? Certainly it is. Taking one example, Sainsbury's reckons that when operating its fleet within the GLA area, the lorry ban, with its pre-determined routes which must be followed, annually adds 750,000 kilometres to its fleet operation. That cannot be too good for Sainsbury's and it is not good for the rest of us who are trying to breathe the air. This is a London-wide issue. Should the Bill be amended to transfer this role to TfL in order to achieve a pan-London approach to the lorry ban?
My view, on behalf of London, is that the Bill is to be welcomed. However, we have much to discuss in Committee because much detail needs to be debated to make the Bill even more effective. Furthermore, there must be a great deal of regulation behind the Bill. It is vital that there is full consultation with all interested parties on that, including the business community, if we are to have legislation that works and makes London a better place in which to live and operate.
5.39 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I welcome the idea of keeping traffic moving fast because I get fed up sitting in traffic jams while the road is being dug up in front of me. I want to concentrate on the implications in the Bill that might hinder the Prime Minister in achieving his stated aims to make Britain the best country for e-business in the near future—by 2005 or 2008. The problem arises with minor works because under the proposals it could take time to obtain a permit.
It is not the telecommunications companies that are now digging up the major roads. The vast majority of the long-distance, or trunk, capacity for the telecoms backbone is now complete, but we still need to connect businesses to that backbone. That can be a minor job, often taking less than a day, and yet it will still probably come under these regulations. Minor swift repairs and servicing also need to be carried out to ensure that things do not get worse and lead to an emergency. We should bear in mind the old saying, "A stitch in time is worth nine".
At present, telecommunications companies have a major incentive to work speedily, partly for commercial reasons but also because they can be fined heavily under current legislation. Interestingly, the Commons Transport Select Committee did not believe that a new system was required. I note that there is some concern that the new system penalises the private sector utilities while favouring the public sector local authorities and highways agencies, which are responsible for 50 per cent or more of the roadworks. That balance is perhaps not fair.
I believe that the real problem is the increase in bureaucracy implied in trying to obtain a permit for small works. I am told that the system in Scotland—Susiephone— has been in use for some time and has worked terribly well. It is not a musical instrument but a telephone line and information centre. People can ring up to find out about networks that are planned in the future and dovetail their own works with those. That system was also used in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that something along those lines would achieve far more, particularly in relation to minor works, than any heavy-handed regulation. I draw the Government's attention to the Better Regulation Task Force recommendation that the Cabinet Office should use its report to promote awareness of the alternatives to classic regulation. I believe that there is certainly a case for that.
I want to highlight another problem relating to the regulations. Their drafting will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and, in that case, the assurances from the Minister that the utilities will be consulted might count for little. I am briefed that it is already becoming clear in the meetings of the working groups which are tasked to draw up the regulations that the DfT is attempting to backtrack on some of the commitments made in the Commons. That is slightly concerning.
One other aspect that rather worries me is the potential liability on business to be responsible for the future costs of resurfacing. So far as I can make
out, that liability can lie on a company's balance sheet for some time. I do not think that that provides for good business planning in companies and it should be given careful consideration.That is all on the IT side. The other point that I was unsure about concerned the Highways Agency being able to operate recovery services in some areas. Personally, I should prefer to use the recovery service to which I subscribe. It is well set up and well organised, and it knows how to get my vehicle out of a difficult situation and transport me to my final destination because that is what I have paid for. Dealing with two sets of people who are trying to recover vehicles could cause greater complexity and would be less efficient, and the public would become very cross, which would not help at all.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for comprehensively introducing this Bill which, like the curate's egg, is good in parts.
Later this month, on the M42, the Highways Agency will commence a trial to see how its roles and responsibilities in the transfer to it of certain duties carried out by police officers will proceed in practical terms.
The most common incident on motorways is the routine breakdown. Ministers in the other place have stressed that it is not their intention to prevent breakdown services continuing to operate. However, lawyers acting for the AA have advised their client that the Bill could enable the Highways Agency to establish a monopoly roadside recovery service funded by charging motorists.
A friend of mine overheard a conversation only yesterday which might confirm the fears of the AA, other breakdown and recovery organisations and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. That conversation was to the effect that the Highways Agency will be able forcibly to remove a broken-down vehicle from any part of the trunk roads, including the hard shoulder, and then charge the victim at least £105 for so doing. The poor motorist will then be taken to a designated area—probably a recovery yard—where he will have to make onward removal arrangements or face storage charges. I am led to understand that a simple amendment to the Bill, consistent with the ministerial assurances, would ensure that such powers will not be given to the Highways Agency without intent. Once people understand what the Highways Agency can and cannot do, there will be vociferous complaints from justifiably aggrieved motorists if the overheard conversation proves to be correct.
Further as the Bill is drafted, it would not only enable the removal of motorists' existing right of choice of commercial provider, but also remove the right of one motorist to stop and offer assistance to another—usually family and friends. Consumer protection issues also appear to have been overlooked because the Bill gives powers for charges to be set to create a revenue stream in the financial interest of the Highways Agency or contractors—those who are empowered to remove vehicles.
The Disabled Drivers Association draws attention to the special needs services provided by the major roadside recovery organisations and that it would neither make sense nor be acceptable to the association to put these national services under threat. Going one stage further, what would be the knock-on effect on those millions of drivers who currently benefit from recovery services sold with new cars? I am delighted that duly authorised people will be given power to inspect disabled drivers' blue badges and I hope that that could be extended to inspections of vehicles in supermarket car parks and in other places where abuse regularly takes place.
The blocking of box junctions has been mentioned and such junctions are mentioned in the Bill. I have a vague recollection that there is an anomaly concerned with box junctions. A box junction is exactly that. It is a yellow painted box at a junction. However, some box junctions painted yellow are on roundabouts. Under current legislation my understanding is—I hope I am wrong—that it is not clear whether a roundabout is a junction. Perhaps we can have clarification about whether a roundabout is a junction.
The current edition of the Police Federation of England and Wales has a couple of excellent articles on the demise of roads policing. I will, as always, advise your Lordships that I passed the Class 1 advanced police driving course in the early 1960s and that I am encouraged by a number of constabularies to take further advanced driving courses, despite, in their eyes, my advancing years. I am the president of the Driving Instructors Association and a council member of GEM Motoring Assist.
Almost two years ago I passed the traffic police fast road and motorway procedures course which concentrated not only on various necessary actions to be taken but also on health and safety implications. In basic terms it is considered that two sets of eyes are better than one where fast-moving traffic is present. Having two traffic officers in a vehicle has, regrettably, not stopped some of them being killed on our motorways and dual carriageways. That should not happen.
None the less, I was surprised to learn that because of the falling numbers of specialist traffic officers, some constabularies are to introduce single-crewed traffic vehicles patrolling fast roads and motorways. We are told that the Highways Agency will ensure the smooth movement of traffic by coning off the sites of collisions and that they will be comprehensively trained. Consider this: if the police officer of a single-crewed vehicle is required by the Highways Agency to attend the scene of a collision and thinks that he or she needs assistance, what will happen if the vehicle called to attend is at the scene of another collision and so will be unable to proceed for some hours? The lone officer may consider it absolutely necessary to close the road—motorway or dual carriageway—until the other vehicle arrives.
The Highways Agency traffic officers will have to follow the instructions of the police officer and traffic would come to a standstill simply because some senior
officers consider it safe for a lone officer to attend in dangerous situations. That, of course, is a situation that is forced on to the shoulders of senior officers—mainly due to cost considerations—but the well-being of their officers should come first. I can see the scenario of a single officer refusing even to get out of his car until another arrives.There was a time, not so long ago, when one could not travel on a motorway without seeing a motorway patrol car. That offered a significant deterrent to all manner of offenders, from the speeding motorist to the violent criminal. That is no longer the case and criminals feel free to use the motorway and trunk road network to ply their trade: they can travel long distances, away from their homes, with little fear of being stopped and found to have stolen goods in the vehicle.
The reliance on camera enforcement, while being effective in catching offenders with a current V5, is no deterrent to somebody using a car registered to no one or with its identity disguised by false registration plates. However, these actions would spark the interest of a road policing officer, who may well go on to detect or prevent more serious crimes.
The Highways Agency officers will have limited powers given to them and will not have criminal actions on their minds. First, let us consider moving traffic. A police officer has the power to stop a suspect vehicle or one that has committed an offence. He is able to do a search on the police national computer, to search the vehicle for stolen goods, drugs or offensive weapons and to inspect the vehicle to see if it is roadworthy. The police vehicle may well be fitted with ANPR—a very useful bit of equipment—enabling the officers to determine ownership of the vehicle stopped, among other matters. The Highways Agency officer cannot do any of that.
Let us now consider the scene of a collision. The Highways Agency officer can cone off the scene and sweep up debris. Will that person sweep away important evidence, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Faulkner? Will that person know that important evidence is being swept away before the arrival of a traffic officer, who will need to investigate the collision where death or serious injury has happened? The last time I attended a road death was on a motorway and there was debris all over the road, which needed thorough investigation before being swept up.
If the intention is for the Highways Agency to police motorways at some time in the future they will have to be given the same powers as police officers, otherwise they will not be able to work effectively. I wonder if these proposals are intended as a cheap form of roads policing? Is this the precursor to a separate traffic police force?
The arrest rate for non-traffic offences by specialist traffic officers is very high; they have a feel for the imperceptibly studied driving of somebody who is trying to hide something. It is not only detectives who arrest offenders, but those arrested by the traffic officer are usually ignored. As I frequently say, a burglar will not carry stolen goods on the top of a bus.
No, that person will travel by car, as quickly as possible. We should not forget that traffic officers are in the front line of stopping other crimes. Some 80 per cent of disqualified drivers have a criminal record, while almost half of convicted dangerous drivers have other convictions.This highly observant body of specialist officers is being reduced little by little, with scant recognition of the implications. They should not be cast into obscurity. Criminals' cars break down; criminals get involved in all sorts of collisions; and drunk drivers stop to urinate on the hard shoulder. Without the police dealing with such incidents, these people would be allowed to continue undeterred—sometimes with fatal consequences.
A loss of expertise has been accelerated by safety cameras, which, I hasten to say, perform the sole but good job of filming those motorists who commit the criminal offence of exceeding the speed limit. But the cameras wi11 not detect the dozens of other offences that motorists commit—both minor and major. If we are to reduce the level of collisions, we need more traffic police in addition to the role proposed by the Highways Agency, and the public should be convinced that the carnage has to stop. With drivers assuming that traffic police are so few that they can usually deal only with scenes of collisions, they will completely ignore legislation in respect of motor vehicles. The number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads will increase and the Government's clear intention of reducing the KSI figures will be in tatters. This must not happen. The pendulum will, eventually, swing in the direction of more police traffic officers—I hope.
I wonder why 540 police traffic officers are to be replaced by 1,200 Highways Agency traffic officers. Surely, that is not financially viable. Every time they get an awkward situation they will have to call the police, of whom there will be very few that are health and safety trained, to do their work on main roads. I find it somewhat ironic that I have these qualifications but that there are many police traffic officers who do not. Of course, by the time one of the few qualified officers gets to the scene of a collision the offenders might have left or, even worse, the situation could have escalated.
The potential problems posed by the Highways Agency doing certain things leading to warrant-holding specialist officers in patrol cars being withdrawn is, I think, fraught with problems which might have been discussed but which are not and will not be appreciated until collisions occur.
Finally, the most dangerous place on a motorway is the hard shoulder. To make use of this as an additional lane seems to me—I cannot say mad, because that is the wrong word, but the implications have not been thought out. Despite my misgivings about certain areas of this Bill, I hope that it proceeds smoothly.
5.55 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate this afternoon, I
believe that the objectives behind this Bill are certainly admirable. There are a number of provisions here that we can all support wholeheartedly. Indeed, I recognise some of the issues that this Bill seeks to address from days gone by, from a different era, in the latter part of the last century, when I and my noble friend Lord Astor sat on the other side of the House. I may well return shortly to address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made in a sedentary intervention.I will confine my remarks to two parts of the Bill, the first of which, Part 6, allows for the civil enforcement of certain driving and parking offences. We have already heard some remarks about that this afternoon. We already have private contractors operating as parking attendants as a result of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and subsequent legislation. We now have a real problem in terms of the degree of respect that the average motorist holds for parking attendants. They are performing their duties in a different way from how traffic wardens used to. We are seeing practices whereby parking attendants are paid a low basic wage, and they are highly incentivised through bonus schemes to dish out tickets.
That has resulted in motorists feeling victimised. All too often, one has seen parking attendants going up and down roads, noting when parking meters are due to expire and hiding round the corner, only to come out and pounce when the clock has gone one second past the due time. This is a good way of raising revenue, and that is what all this is about—at least, that is what the motorist thinks it is about. There is little belief that this has anything to do with getting traffic flowing by discouraging illegal parking. It is about being overly aggressive towards motorists. That is unhealthy and unnecessary.
That is just the current situation. I note in Clause 73(5) that parking attendants appointed under Section 63A of the Road Traffic Act will be designated as civil enforcement officers. The idea of parking attendants who are carrying out their duties in the way that they are—certainly in London—with little training, making judgments on road craft fills me, for one, with utter horror.
Schedule 7 defines the many traffic contraventions that will be subject to Part 6 of the Bill. Section 10 of Schedule 7 gives a substantial Henry VIII clause, to allow the addition of new offences and new contraventions to be put in, with the proviso that they are not offences that would result in automatic endorsement. If this is to be the way that these minor offences will be prosecuted, we must be convinced that there will be proper training for civil enforcement officers. I would appreciate it if the Minister could address that point in his closing remarks. My noble friend Lord Astor talked about the guidance that the Secretary of State said would be given to local authorities. Again, I would certainly endorse his desire to see that at the earliest possible stage.
If one is pulled over by a policeman, for example for turning right when there is a no right turn sign, certainly one has the opportunity at least to discuss the
matter with the officer before he decides whether or not to issue a ticket. A considerable degree of discretion applies. However, I should feel very differently if I was talking to an official who I knew would be remunerated according to the number of tickets that he or she issued. I am genuinely very concerned that the enforcement of traffic violations could earn the disrespect of the public, as has the parking system.I wish to comment briefly on charges. I understand that the penalty for a parking contravention can be as high as £100. That could be awarded to someone who was one second over the limit of the parking time he or she was allowed. I suggest that is an entirely disproportionate amount of money when one considers that the road fund licence for a car for a year is, I believe, £165. A fine of £100 could be awarded for a moment's inattention or perhaps for a moment's delay in returning to one's vehicle that arose through helping someone on the street. That is a wholly excessive amount of money. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the level of charges that will be imposed and whether it will be any different from those that currently apply.
I echo the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in making a plea for police not to withdraw from traffic management. We need only to think of what is alleged, or reported, to have happened with the people who are suspected of causing the Madrid bombings to realise the importance of having high profile policing on the streets and to have people looking at vehicles. A number of terrorist outrages have been foiled due to stolen vans having "dodgy" lights that attract attention. That is a significant point. We need to see a transparent declaration of the sources and applications of the funds that are raised.
Part 1 relates to the establishment of traffic officers. Few people here would argue against a body of civil servants or contractors who would be able to help get traffic moving quickly on motorways and other trunk roads by cleaning up after accidents. That all sounds admirable and, of course, it is, but again we come back to the point that was very well put by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that we need to maintain a high traffic police presence on our roads. It is all very well for traffic officers to be tasked with clearing up after accidents, but despite their uniform and powers to stop and direct, they will not be policemen. Motorists need to know that they will still be vigilantly protected by the police. A reading of Clause 1 would seem to define a national traffic police force, or something that is one step away from it. Will the Minister comment on whether he sees that as a long-term objective?
I am concerned by Clause 8 which states that the national authority may,
- "by statutory instrument confer further special powers on traffic officers".
There should be no confusion about these officers. We are now seeing on our streets a proliferation of people in uniform. There is genuine public confusion about who is responsible for what. We now see community police officers. There are many of them on the streets around Westminster, for example. I would be very surprised if the average man in the street knew what powers and responsibilities those officers had and whether they could stop and search people and so on. I have a residual concern about another group of uniformed sub police officers. For example, will they be able to travel with blue lights on their cars? Will traffic be required to give way to them? If they do not have blue lights, what happens at the scene of a major accident when those officers are the first to arrive? I suggest that without blue lights on their vehicles, they would find it difficult to perform the functions with which they are charged. I would like to know more about their interaction with the police; to have a clearer definition of their roles and responsibilities; to know about their training regimes; and to know how they deal with complaints, investigations and disciplinary proceedings.
Those are just two aspects of the Bill to which I should like to return in Committee. Overall, there is a great deal to be welcomed and I support much of the Bill. My final disappointment concerns the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill. The Department for Transport is rather good at analysing costs: for example, it costs road deaths and can say how many road deaths are needed in order to get a junction improved, and so forth. If any department is equipped to produce an impact assessment, that department would be. However, we are still rather vague on the costs and, more particularly, on the benefits that would flow from the Bill. It seems to be rather difficult to perform a cost/benefit analysis without a grasp of the costs or benefits.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, as I go about my daily activities in London or outside London, I am as conscious as anyone of the inconvenience caused by obstacles making it difficult to exercise one's common-law right to pass and re-pass on the Queen's highway. So I am in favour of stringently enforced regulations for parked vehicles. From the outset, I have been keen on the Mayor of London's congestion charge. Like my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, I am impressed by its initial success. Therefore, I welcome, too, the general thrust of the Bill to restrict and limit the bad effects of breakdowns, accidents and road works of all kinds.
I imagine that one of the most popular provisions in the Bill will be Clause 41, which will extend the duty of street authorities to co-ordinate the street works of statutory undertakers, and of themselves. Clause 49 extends the authorities' powers to restrict new works on roads where works have recently been carried out: I expect that clause will be popular too. As the noble Viscount, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, the public
have to put up with different bodies digging up the road in an apparently unco-ordinated manner in disregard of the public good.However, balanced against those points, it is important that the obvious public interest of reducing obstruction in our streets, of which I have been speaking, is balanced with the less obvious, but none the less at least as important, public interest in the safety and efficiency of our gas and water mains. Certainly, the public ought to have as much concern about what goes on under and over our roads in terms of sewers, supplies of gas and water, telecommunications and so forth, as in the flow of traffic along the roads.
I do not have any current interests to declare, but for many years until last year I was a non-executive director of a water company. I became very aware of our responsibilities as a provider—both now and in the future when greater demands for water will undoubtedly emerge—of sustainable supplies of good quality water. I am sure we all know that the local media often voice the outrage of local people when there are frequent leakages from mains causing justifiable concern at wastage and sometimes disruption and damage to property.
Major programmes of mains renewal are needed in many parts of the country—probably most especially in London, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. Those renewals programmes cannot be carried out except with some—albeit as temporary as possible no doubt—obstructions of the highway. Many people do not realise that half of London's water mains are more than 100 years old. Thames Water, the main supplier in greater London, has carefully worked-out plans—after the practicalities and the costs have been piloted—for the replacement of more than 1,000 miles of mains in the next five years. All our major cities and elsewhere have the same kind of problem.
While I accept the purpose of the Bill is to regulate—and I am all in favour of regulating such works—I ask that those who administer the permit schemes provided for in Part 3 should do so sensitively and with the public need for mains renewal and replacement firmly in the front of their minds. It is important that conditions imposed on the utilities are not unduly harsh—requiring, for example, that work be done only at night—and the charges imposed should not be as high as to suggest that they are generating revenue rather than being fair impositions on the utilities and their customers.
The utilities are quite reasonably concerned about the Bill but, because local authorities and highway authorities will not be charged for permits, utilities may in effect be providing subsidy to the works of those authorities.
As with so many Bills, a great deal depends on what will be in the regulations, and I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said earlier in the debate.
We should look at Clause 36, the permit regulations, and Clause 54, the resurfacing regulations. On the face of it, Clause 53, which precedes the clause about resurfacing regulations, imposes a very extensive obligation on utilities to resurface roads after they have dug them up
and worked upon them. However, they not only have to resurface the part that has been opened up, but the whole of the road. In the meantime, of course, that will lengthen the process of traffic disruption. Regulatory uncertainty arises and there is a risk of one or more local authorities taking advantage of the position and funding their obligations by making unreasonable demands upon the utilities and their customers.This is a good Bill but, as others have said, it will need detailed scrutiny in Committee.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Government on seeking to get more out of our road system. I shall concentrate on Parts 2 and 6 of the Bill and suggest a few improvements, particularly from the point of view of pedestrians and cyclists. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, that if he used a bicycle in London he would never be late for a meeting. You always know when you are going to arrive because you do not get stuck in traffic.
My first question to the Minister is whether "traffic" in this context includes pedestrians and cyclists. I think it does but it is not quite clear. Where the Bill refers to "roads", does that include pavements? We have had this discussion many times before but it needs clarification.
I certainly look forward to receiving the guidance that my noble friend Lord Davies mentioned in his remarks, as does the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I understood my noble friend to say that it will be available at Committee stage, but the noble Viscount seems to think that it will be available at Report stage. Perhaps my noble friend will clarify the position. It may be that I did not hear him correctly.
Behind all this, many cyclists and pedestrians feel threatened by heavier bits of machinery clunking around the road and they feel a need for inclusion and consideration in the Bill. I think they have got it, but they need a little encouragement and confidence building.
I have to question whether the duty of network management on a local authority applies to cyclists and pedestrians as well as to road vehicles. There is a suggestion in the Bill that the duty is the primary consideration, but what about the other obligations in regard to the environment and road safety? Are they secondary or equal considerations?
I would go a little further than my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and suggest that the definition of rights and duties should come from Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I could go into that in more detail, but it is probably a matter for another time.
In London, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, it is clear that the Mayor needs to be able to issue supplementary guidance to local authorities. Perhaps an appropriate amendment could be made to Clause 18. Given that Transport for London is trying to manage the traffic, it was therefore odd to hear in the briefing to which other noble Lords have referred that
one comes over Westminster Bridge and drives along the Embankment on a TfL road, but that the parallel Whitehall—which carries most of TfL's buses, it seems—is a local authority road. It is crazy. That needs to be resolved. TfL suggests that it should oversee 2,000 kilometres of road, which take two-thirds of the traffic in London, even though they make up only one-sixth of the total road length. That seems sensible.How can the Royal Parks in London be incorporated into the new arrangements? Maybe the Government have done that already, but I do not understand how. It would be odd if the Government were effectively giving themselves instructions in connection with traffic management in the Royal Parks. It would seem logical if TfL were to give guidance to the Royal Parks, and they sure need it.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner mentioned that our noble friend Lord Puttnam wanted to be able to close routes for filming. Somebody closed the Wellington Arch for filming a few months ago for 24 hours. That is used by many hundreds of cyclists a day. They were told to go around the roundabout or to get off and walk in the subway. No diversion was provided. I discovered in a Written Answer that English Heritage had earned about £1,000 for closing the arch. If there are to be cycle routes across the Royal Parks, they need to be continuous. At the moment, one goes up Constitution Hill and the cycle lane is closed. Cyclists are told to go on the road, with people shooting by probably at 50 mph. No speed cameras ever appear there and it is very dangerous. One cannot have gaps in cycle routes, because cyclists feel frightened.
TfL has done a great job with its London Cycling Action Plan. Let us hope that that improves, but the Royal Parks have a great deal to learn from TfL. I would not go so far as to suggest that London parks such as Hyde Park should be transferred to Westminster City Council, but it might be an idea in the long term. A lot could be learnt from it not just in terms of cycling, but in relation to other road management issues also. That matter will probably return to us later on.
I turn to my final point on this section of the Bill. Would it be a good idea to look again into the question of road hierarchy, as is suggested by the Government's road safety strategy, Tomorrow's Roads? The question has come up in your Lordships' House many times, and I shall not go into it further.
I turn to Part 6 of the Bill. Widening civil enforcement is a good idea. I know that many people, including the RAC, believe that it is a way to print money. However, whether my noble friend Lord Simon is right or wrong about the lack of police officers, a civil offence is much more likely to be detected and fined in practice. The offender will not do it again. It may be speeding or turning right when one should not have done. If one obeys the law, one has nothing to worry about. That applies to cyclists as well. I am not trying to defend cyclists who go through red lights and nearly hit me when I am on a green light. Everybody should be involved with civil enforcement. There is nothing to worry about, although the special enforcement areas need to be looked at.
Several noble Lords have spoken about road signs. I discovered in the Printed Paper Office today Statutory Instrument 2002/3113, which is a lovely book of nearly 500 pages of all kinds of traffic signs in full colour. It would be quite interesting to see which ones should be added to the list in Schedule 7 of offences for which civil penalties would apply. I would certainly propose to include the advance stop lines for cyclists, which are usually painted green and occupied by large lorries, taxis or cars when they should be occupied by cyclists. I would also include the continuous cycle lanes that are appearing with welcome frequency around cities nowadays. Of course, one likes Henry VIII clauses if one likes what they are trying to achieve, but I believe that we should examine the matter further. There are also anomalies in the way in which cycle lane and cycle track contraventions are proposed to be looked at, compared with the way in which motorists are being dealt with—but that is something that we can explore.
I have quickly summarised my concerns about the Bill, but it is really a very good Bill. I am sure that we can improve it by discussing it at greater length in Committee and later stages. However, I congratulate the Government on introducing it, and I wish it well.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I give a general welcome to the Bill and assure the Minister that it will have the support of these Benches. I have a number of questions, which I hope that we can address either now or later in Committee.
Congestion is no doubt the greatest cause of the unreliability and unattractiveness of bus services. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said, it costs business and commerce a huge amount of money, in London in particular but elsewhere as well. This Bill includes measures to deal with those problems—and, I believe, it can truthfully be said to be friendly to the law-abiding motorist.
Here I would draw something to the attention of people such as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who criticised the provisions, referring to "profit-seeking private contractors" being employed by local authorities to do the work. Who forced local authorities, when the party opposite was in government, to make us employ those contractors? That was the absolute leitmotif of Conservative policy, and we suffer from it. If those people are not properly controlled, I believe that traffic officers and civil enforcement officers, as described in the Bill, should have some police training. Perhaps the Government should consider the isolated examples of those people exceeding their powers, but I do not believe that the commentary of people such as Jeremy Clarkson or the Daily Mail should stand for the experience of most people.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the highway is for the conduct of traffic, not for the general storage of vehicles, heaps of rubbish and all sorts of other things. I want to see highways used for that primary purpose, which is what most law-abiding motorists want.
I want to know whether traffic officers, as described at the beginning of the Bill, will have the necessary powers to set up diversions. The motorways are plagued with accidents and, more particularly, broken-down vehicles, which I do not class as accidents. We hear lots about them every morning on the "Today" programme. I hope that the traffic officers will not only take action but also direct traffic on to the alternative network quickly and competently.
I wonder whether traffic officers and civil enforcement officers will have powers to enforce the payment of vehicle excise duty and to require production, when necessary, of insurance documents. We know that there is a huge problem with avoidance of vehicle excise duty, and it is time that the Government took effective steps to deal with the problem. Will civil enforcement officers have powers to stop vehicles for the purposes of traffic surveys and the necessary tests for air pollution? Will they be allowed to issue fixed penalty notices for such transgressions as pollution?
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has raised the point that the Bill is very strong on its reference to roads but less so in what it says about footways. In Part 1, it defines roads as:
- "any other road to which the public has access".
Clause 34 requires permanent schemes to be submitted to the national authority. That will mean a huge, devastating amount of bureaucracy as each local authority submits its scheme. I wonder why local authorities cannot be trusted to abide by the guidance if it is properly drawn up and comprehensive. One cannot make fun of the differences between local authorities, which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, did, and at the same time criticise the Government for centralising everything. One wants local responsibility or one does not want it, but one cannot have both. One either trusts the local authorities or one does not. I, for one, would trust local authorities, most of which are quite responsible and answer to their electorates.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page