Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that the human transporter was a vehicle and therefore its proper place would be on the roads. But can he tell the House whether we would need primary legislation to make it run legally on the roads or whether that could be done purely by regulation?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we think that it would probably need primary legislation because it raises such significant issues. It is just possible that we could deal with it if it was felt that it could be accommodated satisfactorily on British highways or pavements. We may be able to deal with it in some other way. But it appears to raise such significant issues that it would require primary legislation, not least because we cannot see where it would fit safely for its own purposes other than on pavements, which is the very place where it is least safe for others.

This is a formidable issue. When we said to the company, "There are a great number of interests that you need to consult in order to make out the case", we meant it. We will watch these developments and will participate in any way that we can to understand the work that is taking place in this area. But we could not possibly accept an amendment to the legislation today.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he not agree that rollerbladers are allowed on the public highway, and rollerbladers go just as fast as these vehicles, if not faster?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, first, rollerblades are not powered except by humans and, secondly, they do not have the same weight as the Segway, which involves both a person and a vehicle. So they are different.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised the subject of rollerblades. The difference between a rollerblade and a Segway is that a person on a rollerblade cannot stop himself very quickly, whereas a Segway can stop very quickly indeed because the rider has only to lean back and then the software takes care of it, but I am not aware that a rollerblade contains any software.

I believe that in London, Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham a Segway would be pretty useless on the road. It should be used primarily on the pavement. In the countryside, where I live, where there is not a hard pavement, it might be useful on the road, but its best opportunity for reducing road traffic—that is, the use of cars—will be in an urban area, and that is where it needs to be used on the pavement.
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 157
 

I am still rather disappointed with the Minister—and perhaps a bit with myself in that I did not line up my ducks in order to have a Division. However, I have not done so. But the fact is that the Segway is coming. If the Minister chooses to do nothing about it, it will be ubiquitous by the time he next has the legislative opportunity to do something about it. It is the duty of the Government to anticipate changes in society and normally a lot of effort is put into doing so.

The Minister referred to the Dutch difficulties, but that is a decision for the Dutch. They make extensive use of pedal cycles—far more than we do—so I do not think that the Dutch situation is a good model for us.

I am suggesting only that the Minister should take an order-making power. It might only be an order-making power for a trial or one to allow a local authority to carry out a trial if it feels that that would be useful. A short while ago Ministers said that local authorities were good at making decisions to suit local needs and sometimes they say that they are not very good.

6 pm

The Minister talked about pavements and speeds. Yes, a Segway can go at 12 mph. In the country, travelling along a main road one may want to go at 12 mph, but you would be off your trolley—if I can put it that way—to go at 12 mph on a pavement. One could legislate to make it an offence to use a Segway at more than 4 mph on a pavement. A Segway has various settings for maximum speed and the maximum speed setting can be locked in its memory. If someone ran a person down at 12 mph, the speed would be locked in the memory of the Segway, so it could be seen that a person had programmed the Segway to travel at 12 mph when 4 mph is quite sufficient. Going from your Lordships' House to Pimlico, it would be fine to travel on the pavement at 4 mph—it would be wonderful.

I am disappointed with the Minister's response but I was not minded to divide the House. The Segway is coming and the Minister will have to legislate at some stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 58A:


"REGULATIONS CONTROLLING DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENTS
(1) Section 220 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) (regulations controlling display of advertisements) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3), insert—
"(3A) A local planning authority must exercise its powers so as to ensure compliance with the provisions of these regulations in its area with respect to advertising that can be seen by drivers on a special road (motorway) or a trunk road.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long on this amendment. It was debated at an earlier stage and the Minister replied saying that he was not in favour of requiring local authorities to do
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 158
 
things. We said that something needed to be done about this. Advertisements are appearing alongside our motorways on trailers and van bodies and they are appearing at prominent places on trunk roads. Some local authorities with enforcement powers do something about it and others do not. Companies have been set up to sell the advertising space, even though it is illegal. The amendment would simply compel a local planning authority—"must" is inserted instead of "may"—to do something about advertisements that appear where they are illegal and where they distract drivers from the duty of looking at the traffic. That is the primary reason why advertisements were banned at those sites in the first place. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we support the amendment, but as time is moving on and as we have concluded much of our important business, I shall not enlarge further.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their contributions. The clause is designed to ensure that breaches of the control of advertisements regulations do not occur alongside motorways and trunk roads. It places a duty on local planning authorities to take enforcement action in every case where the regulations are breached. However, we shall resist the amendment because we believe that local planning authorities' enforcement powers are discretionary. A duty to enforce in all cases, irrespective of the nature and circumstances of the breach, would put an additional and unwarranted burden on local authorities. The Government do not consider that this matter should be subject to specific regulations, but, of course, they are concerned about the proliferation of advertisements alongside motorways, and are working on several initiatives to ensure that where such breaches occur, advertisements are quickly removed.

What action are the Government taking? We have met representatives from local planning authorities, particularly in the north-west where there have been some specific problems about the M6. We have written to all local planning authorities, reminding them of their powers to act in these cases, and urging them to do so. We have had positive responses from them. The ODPM has also written to those companies and advertisers that are displaying advertisements on these sites, setting out the regulations and asking them to remove unlawful advertisements. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been working with the Highways Agency, the Local Government Association, the Planning Advisory Service and the Planning Officers Society to seek ways to deal with advertisers and to prevent these advertisements from being displayed. We are looking at other measures that we may introduce to help local authorities to deal with the problem and to eradicate unlawful motorway
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 159
 
advertising. In view of that explanation of work that has recently been undertaken, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. A similar reply was given at a previous stage. I do not believe that the situation is being addressed adequately. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

6.6 pm


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page