| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to direct his remarks to the amendments that are before the House.
Mr. Hughes : I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your intervention. I recall that the subject of consultation, and participation in it, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. I was seeking clarification. It is important that the British Horse Society and other organisations should be consulted and that their views should be known in detail, and not only in terms of the Bill, the provisions of which will be set in concrete when we enact it.
Lords Amendment No. 8 is important because of definitions. We always think that we know what we are talking about, and before I considered the Bill I thought that I knew what a footpath was. It is sometimes said, "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it." When the Bill becomes law, it will be abundantly clear how a footpath, a cycle track or a bridleway is defined. The amendment redefines these facilities in a commonsense way that will be helpful to everyone.
When others come to determine tricky problems of protecting the countryside, including footpaths and bridleways, I believe that they will congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South on accepting Lords amendment No. 8 and on introducing the Bill to the statute book. I say that in a wider sense than footpaths and bridleways, because I consider the Bill to be an important measure, if a limited one. In times to come, people may want to name footpaths and bridleways after my hon. Friend ; instead of Grimsdyke, which runs through part of my constituency, we shall have Brandon-Bravo footpaths and cycleways. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill.
Column 1245
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins) : My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is to be congratulated on having successfully piloted his Bill through to this stage. It has not always been easy. I recall that there was one occasion earlier in the proceedings when it almost seemed that the Bill had been lost. But he rescued it from the brink, and has seen to it that we are taking our final opportunity today to wish the Bill well.
It was perhaps a mark of the astuteness of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South that he should choose a measure whose general principles had already received a favourable response when they were the subject of wide consultation with interested bodies back in 1987. I refer to the TAPWORK report--the report of the traffic and parking working group--which my Department produced following discussion with local authority associations.
I understand that this group continues to provide a forum for discussion on a range of traffic and parking issues of mutual concern to the Department and authorities. I welcome that. The issues at stake in this area are as much of local relevance as they are nationally, and can only benefit from the mutual discussion and exchange of views which such a forum provides.
Other recommendations in the report have also found their way into law, notably in the Parking Act 1989, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). We are indebted to hon. Members on both sides of the House who bring forward worthwhile measures of this sort. Sponsoring a private Member's Bill can be a bit of a thankless task, but those who persevere, like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, have their reward, if only in terms of personal satisfaction.
The proposal to relax the existing consent requirements on temporary orders was included among a number of other proposals for improving traffic and parking powers and practices. As my hon. Friend has said, it met with majority approval. Local highway authorities, in particular, supported the suggestion that the time periods should be relaxed. The existing three- month time limit outside London has proved unrealistic. It has resulted in large numbers of orders being referred to the Department for extension. The case for an extention is incontrovertible. It makes no sense for central Government to be involved in such matters on a routine basis.
So it is clearly time for change. Local highway authorities are responsible bodies. They should be trusted to make their own judgment in these matters without having to resort to the Department. Local highway authorities are also creatures of statute--with statutory obligations to exercise their traffic regulation powers with due regard to maintaining access, to the effects on the amenity of an area, and to other relevant matters. They must
"secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic". They must
"prevent as far as possible the stopping up or obstruction of the highway".
And they must
"protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of the highway".
These duties are enshrined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Highways Act 1980.
Column 1246
Against the background of these safeguards, it is indefensible to continue to subject authorities to a second-guessing consent regime after three months, especially where measures of a temporary nature only are involved. The case for relaxation is therefore overwhelming.My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has explained the amendments themselves in careful detail. I fully endorse his remarks. I am happy to express the Government's support for the amendments which are before the House and which were approved in the other place. what they will do is help to provide an incentive for authorities to limit the duration of orders affecting walkers, horse riders and other non-motorised traffic. It ought to be possible--as he says--for the inconvenience to such groups to be minimised, and rights of way restored more quickly after their temporary suspension. The arguments advanced by the Ramblers Association and others were cogent and persuasive. I was therefore happy to give written undertakings to them and to the British Horse Society that their concerns had been noted.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for his kind comments about the Department's response to those who were concerned. It is very much the business of the Department, where it possibly can, to ensure that agreement is obtained. In this instance, the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, together with my officials, has resolved the difficulties. It may be appropriate to put the undertakings on record, which I was not able to do in earlier proceedings. I shall read out the main text of my letter of 30 April, addressed to the deputy secretary of the Ramblers Association :
"I believe you are not opposed to the Bill, in principle, but have a number of concerns over the details, on some of which there was unfortunately insufficient time for debate last Friday. I discussed these with Mr. Brandon-Bravo and we had agreed between us a number of points on which we hoped we could have satisfied you. It may be helpful if I record them below.
We are content for the Bill to be amended so that temporary orders affecting traffic other than motor vehicles on a footpath, bridleway, cycle track or byway have a more limited duration. We would like to propose 6 months, which would provide a limited relaxation on the present 3 month period, with a power for the Secretary of State to authorise a longer period, on the same basis as now under section 15 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. A suitable amendment would be brought forward in the Lords.
I am also prepared to consider whether, when the Bill is enacted, appropriate guidance might be issued by the Department to highway authorities about the exercise of their powers. This would aim to emphasise the statutory duties which already oblige them to protect rights of way and minimise obstruction. The Bill enhances the provisions about traffic signs. Guidance would underline the need for clear signing and its maintenance throughout the period of any restriction. It could also endorse the requirements in respect of alternative routes. I would be prepared to involve interested bodies in the preparation of such guidance. They will, in any case, be consulted on procedure regulations to be made under clause 1." 10.30 am
Those undertakings are now on the record, and I promise the House that they will be carefully respected. I am glad to report that the responses received were united in their welcome for, and acceptance of, this proposition.
For the Ramblers Association--this is the point that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised in the original debates--Mr. Trevelyan suggested,
Column 1247
in his reply, that the proposed guidance might be discussed in due course in the rights of way review committee, an informal non-statutory committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). At the most recent meeting of the Committee, which I believe was on Monday this week, whose constituent members include the Ramblers Association, the Countryside Commission and a variety of other bodies concerned with countryside matters, I understand that members expressed their satisfaction with the outcome on the Bill and were content to be consulted in due course through their representative organisations. I should like to put on the record my gratitude to them for their co-operation, which I know is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.As has been said, clause 1 provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe procedures to be followed in connection with the exercise by highway authorities of their powers under the Bill. This approach mirrors that already followed in connection with the main types of traffic regulation and parking place order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It has the advantage that procedures can be more easily modified at a later stage to reflect changes in circumstances ; and that time can be taken to consult affected parties and take account of their views in drawing up the necessary regulations. The 1984 Act requires such consultation before regulations can be made. We value that process and will look forward to receiving responses from consultees in due course.
I hope that we shall consult on draft regulations during the autumn. Suitable guidance would be prepared at the same time. We would then aim to implement what I hope by that time will be an Act by commencement order, and publish the guidance, simultaneously with introducing the procedure regulations--perhaps, I hope, around the turn of the year.
Regulations on procedure will replace the provisions currently set out in schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Those deal, at present, with requirements for the prior publication of notices in local newspapers before a temporary order is made, and further notices to be published when the order is made. The notices must state the effect of the order and include a description of alternative routes available.
In the case of temporary restrictions by notice rather than by order, there is no requirement for prior publicity, but the same obligation to describe alternative routes must apply. In all cases, whether the restriction is by means of a notice or order, street notices must be posted conspiciouly at each end of the road and at intermediate junctions.
It is envisaged that new procedure regulations will cover much the same ground. There may be some modifications. In the case of motorways and urban clearways, for example, it hardly seems appropriate to require the posting of street notices where motorists cannot possibly stop to read them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how all that relates to the amendments.
Mr. Atkins : I had hoped, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was dealing with the amendments in the round. As we did not have the opportunity to debate the details that were
Column 1248
raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on Second Reading, I was seeking to deal with them now. I hope that that meets with your approval.Mr. Deputy Speaker : I hope that the Minister can tell me and the House how he relates the matter that he is describing to the amendments that we are considering ; otherwise, he must address his remarks specifically to the amendments.
Mr. Atkins : I shall endeavour to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was under the impression that I was discussing those matters at the request of the House, following the Second Reading debate, when I undertook to provide amendments that the representatives of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South could table in another place. I said that, when the amendments returned to this House, I would respond to them, and that is what I was endeavouring to do. Perhaps I can continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if you find me--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the Minister will not be too prolix and that he will recognise that the Chair has a duty to safeguard the interests of other hon. Members who are waiting for their Bills to be reached. This is a private Members' day.
Mr. Atkins : Yes, I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to respond to the real concerns that were raised in the original debate, which I was requested to do by hon. Members of all parties, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and others raised a number of topics. I thought that I had recorded my desire to do so in my earlier remarks, and my gratitude to those people who responded as a result of the amendments that were tabled in the Lords. What I am saying relates to those amendments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South will agree with that. I shall endeavour to proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and see whether I can stay within your terms of order.
I am glad that, in his later comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South recognised the importance of traffic management. The main impact of the Bill will be in respect of traffic on the road network. We must ensure that highway authorities have an adequate and efficient means of managing the network. That is as relevant to temporary measures for emergency work, repairs to water mains, or other remedial work as it is in respect of permanent traffic orders. With rising car ownership and the increasing demand for travel, we must use every endeavour to ensure that we make the best use of the available road capacity.
I know that many hon. Members are concerned about congestion and delays that result from roadworks. That matter was referred to in interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). The Bill does not seek to strengthen the law in respect of road works by utilities, and the matter of subsequent reinstatement. Many hon. Members have made clear their support for more far -reaching changes in the management of utility street works. The Horne report--the report of a review carried out under the chairmanship of Professor Horne--made a convincing case for reform. The Government accepted that case, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Deptford also accepts it. I hope that,
Column 1249
when that matter is debated in the House, we shall have a short debate and reach agreement on the reform of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, which covers the matter that we have discussed.The Bill, however, is now an appropriate vehicle for piecemeal changes to street works legislation. I hope that we shall bring forward such legislation in the not too distant future.
The Bill and the Lords amendments relate to the TAPWORK report--the report of the traffic and parking working group--to which I referred in my opening remarks. The report supported the recommendation of the Horne committee that highway authorities should have the power to charge public utilities undertaking road works, so recovering the costs of making traffic orders, erecting signs and other associated costs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I do not think that that has anything at all to do with the amendments. Am I wrong?
Mr. Atkins : I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this matter arose during the debate and I am responding to it. I thought that that was the task of a Minister during debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not think that these matters relate to the debate--I may be wrong. Perhaps the matter was referred to when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair.
Mr. Atkins : I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you were not in the Chair when that matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, and the hon. Member for Deptford intervened ; Mr. Speaker was in the Chair at the time. In the circumstances, I thought that it would be wise for me to touch on that matter now, and I hoped that the House would approve of that. That was certainly my intention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has not sought to include those matters in his Bill. Perhaps he was wise to limit his ambitions in that respect. The Government have, however, already accepted the principle that the highway authority should be able to recover from any body excavating in the highway any reasonable costs in making temporary traffic orders and signposting traffic diversions. That is what the Bill and the Lords amendments are all about.
In view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily. There are matters that I can gloss over, in view of the concerns that have been expressed. The ones to which you have just referred are not incorporated in the Bill. In many respects I am glad that they are not.
On Report, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the sole aim of the Bill was to help bureaucrats in the Department and in local authorities and that it would do nothing for the general public. That is not the case. Anyone who has worked in local government, as I have, will know that local authorities take their highways responsibilities seriously. Their aim is to minimise disruption from roadworks and maintenance and to manage traffic efficiently in the public interest. The Department's objectives in that respect are no different. My hon. Friend's Bill, and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, are not designed simply to save my officials' time. He would be the first to admit that.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley) : My hon. Friend has done a remarkably good job in trying to co-ordinate the
Column 1250
speed and pace at which road repairs are going ahead, but is he aware that in my constituency there is a positively third-world problem?Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should obtain a copy of the Lords amendments before he intervenes again.
Mr. Atkins : Perhaps my hon. Friend ought to come to see me on another occasions, when we might discuss the third-world effects of road congestion in Crawley.
On Report, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the sole aim of the Bill was to help bureaucrats. However, it is aimed at streamlining the process and cutting out wasteful and unnecessary bureaucracy at the centre. I am confident that the aims of the Bill and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, at my hon. Friend's suggestion, will commend themselves to the whole House.
On Report, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)--who, I regret to say, is not, unusually, in his place--took us on a brief visit to Swallow Falls. It reminds me that the Bill, and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, relate to Wales as well as to England and Scotland, as does the 1984 Act that the Bill seeks to amend. On a number of occasions, our debates have also touched on green lanes, the colloquial expression for byways open to all traffic, otherwise known as BOATs. The amendments that we are considering would introduce the shorter six-month time limit for temporary orders affecting byways, which Lords amendment No. 8 defines more prosaically as
"a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are used." That definition already appears in section 127 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
In view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not linger on byways, a subject that properly deserves separate attention. Suffice it to say that I share the desire to preserve historic routes and that I am concerned at instances where there appears to be inappropriate or over- intensive use by vehicular traffic. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been requested by the Countryside Commission to initiate traffic regulation powers on part of the Ridgeway national trail. Preparations are in hand for draft orders that would impose a ban on recreational vehicle use on Sundays throughout the year. The aim is to reduce the scope for conflict between vehicular users and those on foot or horseback. Draft orders will be published in due course. There will be an opportunity for public comment and representation.
Mr. Soames : Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling that the orders go far too far as it is, and that the conflict between users of vehicles and pedestrians and horses has not been satisfactorily resolved by the Government? Further consideration must be given to the extreme selfishness of those who drive motor bikes and motor cars over those roads, resulting in such dreadful effects for horse riders and walkers.
Mr. Atkins : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I know that he feels deeply about the matter and that he speaks about it with considerable knowledge. I am sure that he will pursue it. If I dealt with it now, you
Column 1251
would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps, therefore, my hon. Friend will write to me, when I shall be more than happy to pursue the matter.10.45 am
Mr. Michael Brown : If the Lords amendments were passed, I understand that the highway authority could ask the Minister to extend the period beyond six months, but that the Minister could refuse the request. After such a refusal, highway authorities could not make another application for at least another three months. My hon. Friend would have an absolute power in respect of highway authorities if the Lords amendments were passed. In what circumstances would he use his absolute power to refuse a highway authority permission for an extension beyond the original six-month period?
Mr. Atkins : I am cautious about suggesting that I have absolute power over anything. I should not wish to exercise absolute power. However, as usual, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head and in his question has also defined the answer.
The aim of the draft orders would be to reduce the scope for conflict between vehicular users and those on foot or horseback. Draft orders will be published in due course. There will be an opportunity for public comment and representation before the matter is taken further. I am reminded that at one of my earlier meetings with my departmental officials the topics included green lanes, orange badges and red routes. I do not intend to be drawn on matters that are outside the terms of the Lords amendments.
Traffic signals are an essential component of many temporary traffic schemes. I am very nearly at the close of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which, as the House will recall, were the result of a commitment that I made at an earlier stage when I was pressed, not least by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, to establish the procedure for tabling the Lords amendments. I am grateful that the House recognises that it is important for me to expand on the amendments.
Traffic signals are an essential component of many temporary traffic schemes, the subject of the Bill and the Lords amendments. They can make the difference between an orderly queue at roadworks, and chaos as alternating traffic competes for priority. It is sometimes sensible to phase roadworks along a stretch of road so that the minimum length of road is out of commission at any one time. In such cases, the temporary restriction need apply only where appropriate traffic signs are in place.
However, when the temporary order is first made it may not be known what the contractor's sequence of work will be. There is a need for flexibility to cope with that. One of the less conspicuous items in the Bill, clause 14(4), provides the necessary freedom to organise these matters in the most effective manner by reference to section 4(1) of the 1984 Act, which allows a traffic regulation order to have effect only where the relevant traffic signs are in place. The Bill retains the present power to make temporary restrictions in the interests of protecting the public from danger. It is equally important that safety at roadworks is given due consideration. That is why I welcome clause 1(5), which ensures that temporary speed restrictions at roadworks and contraflow sections on motorways are
Column 1252
subject to the same penalties as speeding offences elsewhere. The maximum penalty will remain at level 3--£400, as now--but will be strengthened by the additional powers of obligatory endorsement and discretionary disqualification.On report I made a comment about being an avid follower of grand prix and other motor sports. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish thought that I might have powers to close roads temporarily for motor racing. I have to disappoint him ; I have no such powers. Racing on the public highway is an offence. Motorists who do not observe speed limits through coned-off sections of road are acting foolishly and dangerously, as well as illegally. The Bill will ensure that they face the full force of the law.
The Bill contains a collection of small but useful measures. Taken together --
Mr. Robert G. Hughes : I am not entirely sure that the Minister gave me the assurance I sought about consultation with the British Horse Society under clause 1. He referred to the consultations and the correspondence, but I am not sure that he said that he intended to consult the society under the terms of clause 1.
Mr. Atkins : I certainly intend to consult wherever necessary. That has always been the policy of the Department of Transport. Given the opportunity to consult, we always do so.
In conclusion, the Bill contains a collection of small but useful measures. Taken together, they will provide more flexibility and better powers to manage traffic for temporary periods in the interests of minimising congestion and disruption. They will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and help authorities to respond more quickly and positively when the need arises.
In congratulating my hon. Friend on the way in which he handled the Bill, which demonstrates his skill in these matters, I give the Bill and the Lords amendments my wholehearted support.
Ms. Ruddock : I shall make the briefest of remarks, because I hope that we shall proceed to other private Members' Bills this morning. I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks--of course only those which were in order--in supporting the Lords amendments. It is a considerable tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that he so powerfully raised the interests of the Ramblers Association, walkers and riders at the start of our proceedings on the Bill, leading to the success of the Lords amendments which have enabled us to reach a happy consensus. Perhaps I am anticipating today's conclusion, but, as one who has successfully piloted a private Member's Bill through the House, I know just how much stress is involved and how thrilling it is when one reaches the final hurdle and, one hopes, gets over it. However, I warn the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that he will have to make sure that the Minister keeps his undertaking to make regulations. To date, the Government have failed to put the regulations to my Bill. I am sure that that comment was out of order, but I thought that I might get away with it.
I conclude on a happy note. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. It is indeed a Bill of small but useful measures. We support the Lords amendments and the Bill as amended.
Column 1253
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment :--The House divided : Ayes 28, Noes 0.
Division No. 283] [10.51 am
AYES
Atkins, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Colvin, Michael
Durant, Tony
Dykes, Hugh
Favell, Tony
Gale, Roger
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Knapman, Roger
Knowles, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Lightbown, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Rhodes James, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom
Shelton, Sir William
Soames, Hon Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor
Steen, Anthony
Summerson, Hugo
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Michael Stern and
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.
Nil Tellers for the Noes
NOES
Nil Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Harry Barnes and
Mr. Dennis Skinner.
It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, Mr. Deputy Speaker,-- declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.
| Next Section
| Home Page |