Traffic
Management Bill - Monday, 5th January 2004
8.17 pm
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): In deciding whether to oppose
the Bill, my tests have been quite simple. Will its provisions
make a genuine difference to road safety across the country?
Will they make a genuine difference to the economic performance
and success of our country? Will they make a difference to
the road safety figures and economic life of my constituency?
Will they make a difference to the quality of life of people
in Salisbury who endure daily gridlock as they try to get to
work? Will they make a difference to people in the villages
in my constituency who find it increasingly difficult to get
into Salisbury and park there, and whose local authorities
are frustrated in their pursuit of perfectly sensible plans
agreed with the Government to alleviate traffic management
problems and do what is required of them under clause 16? I
shall return to that later.
I have come to the conclusion that I shall not oppose the Bill
because, as I said to the Secretary of State earlier, it includes
many commendable provisions. However, I am happy to sign up to
the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend,
the Leader of the Opposition and others, because the Bill fails
to address the most serious causes of congestion. A key problem
is the fact that there is no longer enough road capacity for
our level of economic activity in this country. The local transport
settlement announced in a written answer on the last day on which
Parliament sat before Christmas was a serious setback for effective
traffic management in my Salisbury constituency, as I shall seek
to explain.
I accept that the Department of Transport was born of necessity
and died of exhaustion in 1997, when it became part of the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Department
for Transport has been born again, and I wish it well. The Bill
includes some fundamental provisions that have not been properly
explored, although they have been touched on, including the novel
concept that someone who is not a constable may stop traffic
on the public highway. That is a very important power, and the
public need to understand what is about to happen. We are all
familiar with the lollypop lady—an example of a civilian
employed by a local education authority who has the power to
stop a vehicle for a very limited and specific purpose. The Police
Reform Act 2002 contained provision allowing the police to direct
certain employees of local authorities to stop traffic on a public
highway in certain circumstances, but the scope of that power
was very limited and largely related to road traffic regulations,
construction and vehicle inspectorate checking and so on.
Last autumn, however, I came across the London Local Authorities
Bill, which came to this House from another place, and noticed
clause 9, which is entitled Vehicle emissions testing: stopping
of vehicles". I was unhappy about that provision. A decade
ago, when I held the office now occupied by the Under-Secretary,
and was Minister for Roads and Traffic, there was a fierce debate
in the then Department of Transport about all the issues that
we are discussing tonight. That included discussion about the
extent to which the police could be left to do better things
and the suggestion that civilians could perfectly well take on
certain functions such as stopping vehicles to check them.
At that time, on the basis of representations received from
a number of different authorities and people, including the police,
the Department decided not to proceed. The reasons were straightforward.
We were told that the public had confidence in the police and
were used to the police stopping them and instructing them to
go to the side of the road, whether to direct them around an
accident or whatever else. For a very long time, there has been
a presumption in our country that no one except a constable has
the right to stop people on the public highway. It was put to
me and my Secretary of State that there were genuine fears that
burglars, thieves, rapists and even terrorists would take advantage
of such a power and dress up in a uniform that appeared to be
a security officer's uniform, and that that possibility was very
dangerous and a risk not worth taking. I find it strange that,
a decade later, when the risks from terrorism are so much greater,
it should be decided that the danger of abuse is not very serious
after all.
On the question of uniforms, as part of the debate in the Department
of Transport a decade ago, I was taken to visit the Dartford
bridge, or Le Crossing", as we now have to call it under
French ownership. Those who made the visit saw the security officers
employed by the bridge company, who looked just like Metropolitan
police officers. They had little silver numbers on their shoulders
and wore black ties and blue shirts. People driving over the
bridge obviously thought that they were police officers and were
inclined to do what they said. Of course, they were not police
officers; they merely gave the impression that they were. I am
not saying that anyone was trying to do anything illegal or underhand.
Indeed, the arrangement was made with the full co-operation of
the police forces either side of the bridge, who thought it a
good idea that they did not have to do the job. Nevertheless,
the answer at that time remained that applying that policy to
the public highways was a risk not worth taking.
I pursued my concern about the provision by the simple expedient
of exercising my right to object to the London Local Authorities
Bill until I was satisfied that the authorities concerned, and
indeed the House, had given the matter proper consideration.
Of course, the Bill was considered in Committee both in another
place and in this House. Some of the issues were discussed, although
not in any particular detail, but I wanted to check up some points
with one or two people before I withdrew my objection. I wrote
to the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport,
the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), replied in a
letter dated 16 December. He was not very enthusiastic:
“The Department was consulted about this provision and
has expressed no strong views on it. . . . I know that there
are those who are cautious about giving powers to stop to civilians—and
this is why the powers that are available to our enforcement
staff in the Vehicle Operator Services Agency are currently on
trial."
So no conclusion has yet been reached. He continued:
“
However, I hope that we will be able to demonstrate both to the
police and to the public and vehicle operators that giving powers
to stop to particular civilian groups with enforcement responsibilities
is a sensible use of resources. I also hope we will be able to
show that, in practice, this idea carries with it no real drawbacks.
I hope this is helpful."
Yes, it was helpful. At least I knew that the Government had
at least considered the matter and were aware of the terms of
the Bill.
I also wrote to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
from whom I have yet to receive a response. If he says that the
Metropolitan police are perfectly happy with the measure and
see no difficulty, and if the House properly considers this particular
matter on Second Reading and in Committee, where the issues can
be properly looked at, I will withdraw my objections to the London
Local Authorities Bill.
I am not sure that the Bill before us goes far enough to address
traffic management issues, as it seems to leave out a lot. For
example, it does not have anything to say about motor cycles,
but the motor cycling fraternity is very important. I know that,
historically, the guardians of public policy in the Department
for Transport have been opposed to motor cyclists because they
consider them to be dangerous. That was always the case. The
Minister shakes his head, and he is right to do so. As the relevant
Minister, I went for a few rides on motor bikes and saw the experience
from the riders' point of view. Eventually, we came around to
encouraging motor cyclists because motor cycles were environmentally
friendly and took up so much less space. I am glad to say that
we introduced the first experiments and trials in which motor
cycles were allowed to travel along bus lanes in certain cities.
That was very successful and I wish that it could happen much
more; it is a very sensible idea. I would like traffic management
to take greater account of motor cycles.
The same is true of cyclists. The humble bicycle is increasingly
important. I endorse what has been said about cyclists in Milton
Keynes and about the problem of a lack of provision for specific
funding. Of course, there is now a presumption in local transport
packages that an element will be spent on bicycles. I am glad
to say that in Nottingham, I think in 1994 or 1993, I introduced
the first ever Government cycling policy; indeed, that was an
appropriate city in which to do so. Traffic management and pedestrians,
taken together, are also a very important subject. Although we
are assured by the road research laboratory and others that it
is possible for bicycles and pedestrians to go together, such
combinations have to be carefully planned in congested city centres.
I suppose that I should declare an interest at this point as
president of the Salisbury plain branch of the Institute of Advanced
Motorists, from which I am never short of advice about the impact
of traffic management—or the lack of it—on driving
habits and conditions in and around Salisbury.
Clause 16 deals with network management duties. It is all very
well imposing new duties on local authorities, but without adequate
resources enabling them to fulfil their obligations, not a lot
will happen. The big issue in clause 16 is whether traffic management
plans can be properly implemented. I want to stiffen the resolve
of Ministers in the Department for Transport, to strengthen their
hand with the Treasury, and to encourage them like mad to stick
to the agreement on the Salisbury transport package that we had
reached, under the guidance of the Government office for the
south-west, when the Government, sadly and misguidedly, decided
in July 1997 to cancel the Salisbury bypass. Salisbury desperately
needs a bypass, and we are now seeing the results of that decision.
We agreed to put together a sensible, carefully phased traffic
management plan, much of which would conform completely with
the Bill. It was an integrated and balanced policy that included
five park-and-ride sites, one of which is up and running and
two of which are out to tender. Now we find that even the Government
office for the south-west is embarrassed because funds have been
frozen; and it looks horribly as though we are not going to make
any progress and the whole thing will fall apart.
Just before Christmas, I had a word with both Under-Secretaries,
who have attended assiduously throughout the debate, and I know
that they are happy to look at the matter. Having been in their
position, I do not believe in conspiracy theories; but I do believe
in cock-ups, and I think that this is a cock-up. [Interruption.]
Well, some of us have been there. Seriously, I ask the Minister
to consider seeing me, perhaps with some of my councillor colleagues,
to consider carefully the problem of Salisbury, because its transport
settlement fits so well with what he is trying to achieve in
the Bill. If we fail to deliver for the people of Salisbury,
that will be a failure for the Government, for it was they who
made the proposal and my councillors who courageously put party
prejudice aside and said, Yes—gulp—we'll sign up
to this because it is in the interests of the whole community
of Salisbury". I hope very much that we will not fail at
this late stage.
Another issue is that of mobile safety camera units and the enforcement
of speed limits through cameras. As an experienced motorist,
I believe that one is either breaking the speed limit or one
is not. It is idle to argue, It was a perfectly clear road, officer—there
was no traffic about, it was late at night, and I was sober;
but, darn, the cameras were flashing." That is not a rational
argument. There is a reason for speed limits and for imposing
the law. In my judgment, speed cameras have undoubtedly done
far more good than harm. Yes, they can be a real menace to people,
but I hope that the Government will not weaken. They should be
sensible, however, where it can be shown that, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) explained earlier, cameras
have been sited in the wrong places for the wrong reasons. We
can all agree with that. If there is evidence of the indiscriminate
placing of those cameras, that will break the trust between the
public and the police, which is very damaging and should not
happen.
The public often do not realise how far ahead of us the police
have got in detecting and deterring crime through the use of
cameras. Last summer, I spent some time with the special constabulary
in my constituency, who are particularly useful in assisting
the regular constabulary in traffic enforcement matters. Operating
in conjunction with the Wiltshire constabulary, the specials
manned a white van mobile safety unit. I was hugely impressed—not
only by the technology, but by the approach and attitude of the
policemen and women who carried out those duties. What is achieved
by those vans would be unimaginable even a decade ago. I learned
that in Northamptonshire, which has been pioneering in this respect,
overall crime detection has soared to hitherto unheard of levels.
The cameras in the van can identify a vehicle that is coming
towards its rear, and a signal is transmitted via a satellite
up-link to the police national computer. The response is either
to give the all clear, so nothing happens, or to set off an alarm
that immediately tells the police on the ground that the vehicle
is wanted in connection with a crime, a robbery, a speeding offence,
lack of insurance, lack of tax, or whatever. That has undoubtedly
given a degree of security to communities around the country
that was not there before the so-called dreaded speed camera
was introduced. The surveillance does not stop there. It is quite
noticeable around the Churchill way in Salisbury, the inner ring
road—the sad temporary fix for a proper bypass that was
constructed in the 1960s—where one sees the Highways Agency
cameras tracking the whole of that route and able to read the
vehicle number plates and more.
In the control room at the headquarters of the Wiltshire constabulary
in Devizes, I have seen the CCTV cameras operated by the district
council in Salisbury, Amesbury and Wilton, which can pan in and
read the tax disc on a vehicle that is driving along a road,
to see whether it is out of date. The technology is remarkable.
There is one thing that astonishes me: if a Conservative Government
had done that, we would never have got away with it, because
of all the civil liberties arguments—How dare you? Human
rights!" We would not have done it. We could not have achieved
it. Whether the public do not know the level of surveillance
they are under, or whether Labour is no longer old Labour and
is new Labour and does not mind about civil liberties, I am not
sure. I leave that judgment to others. Although there is always
a balance to be struck in terms of civil liberties, the use of
cameras not only in traffic management, but in policing techniques
and security has come on apace, to the advantage of the community
as a whole.
I was delighted to hear what the Secretary of State said about
road accident clearance. I hope that the point, which was echoed
by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir
George Young), about the role of coroners, can be addressed,
as that is a sticking point.
In conclusion, the way in which hazards have been engineered
out of our roads is remarkable. As usual, it is a combination
of common sense and good design. I endorse what my right hon.
Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and others said
about that. Of course, designing roads is hugely important and
has developed remarkably and must continue to do so, in conjunction
with the enormous advantage that we have gained from the way
in which new technology can be used to help us achieve safety.
That includes overhead gantries, a concept that I recall introducing
on to the M25; variable speeds on motorways and trunk roads,
which I was delighted to put my name to as Minister for Roads
and Traffic a decade ago on the M25, and which, in a perfect
world, would be the solution to many problems; and ramp metering,
which has had a hugely positive impact round the midlands box,
for example. Those are instances of new technology being used
and improved all the time. A further example is real-time public
transport information at bus shelters and so on.
Engineering out the hazards is one aspect, and the Bill should
ensure that more attention is given to that, through the appointment
of local authority traffic officers. Perhaps the biggest thing
of all is our attitude to speed as road users. Anyone who has
driven in the United States of America will know that there is
a completely different and relaxed attitude to driving there.
One does not bother to change lanes—what is the point with
a seven-lane highway, a big car, a 55 mph speed limit and traffic
cops with guns at every turn on the highway? One just does not
speed or change lanes. One behaves more sensibly.
That is the sort of attitude we need to encourage in this country.
It does not profit us very much if we drive at 80 mph on a motorway
for a few miles. If we had kept at 70 mph, we might have got
there 30 seconds later. When we come to the end of the motorway,
we will have got there quicker and will have longer to wait to
get through the bottleneck that was caused.
That is another point in favour of speed cameras. People wonder
about the purpose of a speed camera on a straight road without
any congestion. One purpose is to ensure constant traffic flows
along roads, because that makes the best use of the capacity
of the road. If we think differently about speed as drivers,
just as we now think differently about drinking and driving,
and just as we tend to think differently now about smoking, that
will be the most effective way in which we can improve traffic
management and road safety. It comes back to human behaviour.
There will always be tearaways and boom boys. There will always
be people chasing each other, as there were when I was on a road
near Salisbury last Saturday evening. They were behaving in the
most appallingly dangerous manner at only 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
Changing human behaviour is the best way in which we can influence
traffic management.
The Bill will do no harm, and it might do some good. I suspect,
therefore, that although I shall vote in favour of the reasoned
amendment, it will get into Committee, where a great deal of
work will need to be done on it before it comes back here. I
hope that it will really make a difference to my constituents
and to the whole country.
|
