Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) I rarely have the chance of speaking two
times on one day in quick succession. I am glad to have secured
this debate, but I am sad that we are having to revisit the topic.
My first Adjournment debate in this House on 6 June 2018 was on
pavement parking. I am sorry that nearly six years on, we are still
only talking about preventing it. I am by no means the only person
to have raised this subject, as the Minister knows. Since that
debate, we have...Request free trial
(Blaydon) (Lab)
I rarely have the chance of speaking two times on one day in
quick succession.
I am glad to have secured this debate, but I am sad that we are
having to revisit the topic. My first Adjournment debate in this
House on 6 June 2018 was on pavement parking. I am sorry that
nearly six years on, we are still only talking about preventing
it. I am by no means the only person to have raised this subject,
as the Minister knows. Since that debate, we have had promises to
resolve the problem, a few Government announcements and even a
consultation three years ago—but still no Government response,
much less any action.
Guide Dogs set out well what has been happening. It pointed out
that it has supported private Member’s Bills in the House of
Commons in 2014 and 2015, which contributed to the Department for
Transport decision to commission research on pavement parking.
The Department subsequently held a consultation on managing
pavement parking between 31 August and 22 November 2020,
exploring three options: first, to improve the traffic regulation
order process by which local authorities can already prohibit
pavement parking; secondly, a legislative change to allow local
authorities civil parking enforcement powers to enforce against
unnecessary restriction of the pavement; and, thirdly, a
legislative change to introduce a London-style pavement parking
prohibition throughout England. Guide Dogs supported all three,
but it strongly emphasises the third option, to introduce a law
across the rest of England.
(Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In
Manchester, pavement parking continues to prevent people from
participating in everyday life, especially vulnerable and
disabled people. Back in May 2023, I petitioned Parliament to
outlaw pavement parking across the country. That had huge support
from my constituents and local authorities, but the Government
have done nothing about it. Does she share my concern that the
Government continue to show their contempt for the people of
Britain by failing to enforce simple measures that would greatly
benefit the public?
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
The argument for a pavement parking ban needs little restatement.
All the organisations that have contacted me since I secured this
debate are largely in agreement. They say that pavement parking
puts pedestrians in danger, including disabled and older people,
as well as parents with children, and that the Government must
take action. Locally, I know, there are major issues with the
school run for parents and children negotiating parked cars. From
my constituents who raised this issue, I know it is clearly one
that is deeply felt. I am sure that they are not alone in that in
Blaydon. Residents regularly tell me about the problems pavement
parking causes outside the little shops in Winlaton, along the
high street in Birtley or even just up from my home along the
main road in Ryton.
Guide Dogs UK has done a lot of work on this issue because
pavement-parked vehicles pose a particular risk to people with
sight loss, blocking their routes, creating trip hazards and
forcing them to walk on to roads full of traffic which they
cannot see. Research by Guide Dogs has found that virtually all
people with sight loss have been forced to walk in the road due
to pavement-parked vehicles. Some 80% of respondents said that
pavement parking affects them weekly, while one in five said that
they had been injured as a result of it. A third of people with
sight loss said that they are less willing to go out alone just
in case they come up against vehicles blocking their path. It is
deeply unjust that people with sight loss should have their
everyday lives disrupted because of this issue.
In my last Adjournment debate, I talked about my experience of
meeting Margaret and Laurel, constituents of mine who are both
visually impaired, and taking a walk with them blindfolded, or
with restrictive glasses, on my local street. At the time, they
told me that they had lost confidence in going out alone, and
that their independence was at risk because of the number of
vehicles parked on the path. I had the chance to catch up with
Laurel ahead of this debate, and I am sad to say that little has
changed for her in the past six years. She shared with me the
following message:
“Where I live, all the houses are built in the 1950s and many
don’t have their own drive. As a result, everyone parks their
cars on the pavement. You can’t get past them, and often Tasha,
my Guide Dog, and I have to walk in the road. It’s not just the
one car we have to get past—I frequently have to go in the road
to get past a few of them, which is so frightening as you can’t
hear bikes or quieter cars. If I try to get past without going on
the road, I find that I often hit my head on the wing mirrors,
which is unnerving in itself.
I want to be independent and use the pavement without having to
get help, but there are so many cars about that it’s getting
harder all the time. I recently went to catch the bus but found
there were cars parked each side of the bus stop pole, stopping
me from waiting there, and preventing the bus from pulling up. I
had to step out into the road to get to the door of the bus,
which was nerve racking. You don’t know what might be coming
towards you and you are putting yourself and your guide dog in
danger. Because I’d had to step down into the road, the step onto
the bus wasn’t at the height I’m used to, and I missed it and
fell, really hurting myself. The driver didn’t help and just said
he’d report the problem.
On another occasion when I was coming home, the bus got to my
stop and struggled pulling into the curb because of the cars. The
driver actually stopped right in front of the pole so that it was
right in front of the doors when they opened. If I’d got out, I’d
have walked straight into it but fortunately, my son was with me
on that occasion, and he grabbed hold of me to stop me.
I feel really angry because people parking on the pavements just
don’t realise what problems they cause Tasha and I when we’re
out, and I want someone to stop this happening.”
The focus of my debate is the problems that we are having in my
Blaydon constituency, which, as the Minister knows—it is next to
his constituency—is in the north-east. I note that the north-east
deeper devolution deal, which was published yesterday, contains a
section that addresses pavement parking. The North East Mayoral
Combined Authority’s stated intention to develop a consistent
approach to enforcement is laudable, and I know that my local
authority, Gateshead Council, has previously looked at what it
can do to help with the problem, but identifying streets and
issuing traffic regulation orders is a lengthy, impractical and
costly process, and local authority civil enforcement officers
have few powers where there are no lines or signs present. That
is why so many organisations and local authorities have called
for a system that allows for blanket prohibition, such as the one
that currently operates in London, with the potential to allow
for exceptions where local geographies or street designs make
them necessary.
The national consultation was set up to consider what the
Government could do to support councils to take action on this
issue. I gently remind the Minister that that consultation took
place in 2020, and it stated that a summary of responses would be
published within three months of its closing. It has now been
1,285 days since the consultation closed, but we are without a
substantive update. That is without considering the dawdling that
took place prior to the consultation, which I understand the
Government had initially planned for early 2017, or—to look even
further back—the time that has elapsed since the hon. Member for
North Dorset () introduced a private Member’s
Bill on this issue in 2015.
In a debate in the House of Lords only a few weeks ago, the
Under-Secretary of State, , told that House:
“Yes, it is time and I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant
future we will come out with a report on this.”[—[Official
Report, House of Lords, 21 February 2024; Vol. 836, c.
607.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=836&ColumnNumber=607&House=2)
I can understand that the 15,000 responses that I believe were
submitted need to be looked at, and that considering them takes
some time, but from hearing those words from Lord Davies, one
could be forgiven for assuming that the Government were just
running a tad over the deadline. We are now more than three years
on, and it is disappointing that the Government cannot promise us
anything better than vague hopes for a response.
I thank my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way. A recent
Sustrans report found that 49% of people in Greater Manchester
wish to walk or use their wheelchair more, and 40% want to cycle
more. Does she agree that if the Government banned pavement
parking nationally, that would improve the accessibility of our
footways, make our streets safer, and encourage people to choose
active travel alternatives to cars?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are all looking to
develop active transport policies, and making it easier for
people to walk on pavements and use public transport safely is a
real issue, so I very much welcome that report.
As I have said, 15,000 responses might be a lot of paperwork to
get through, but they also suggest a high level of public
engagement and interest in this issue. The Government owe it to
disabled people, as well as the wider public, to ensure that they
complete this process. As such, I ask the Minister whether the
Department for Transport will commit today to urgently publish
the response to the consultation on managing pavement parking,
and to set out a timetable for introducing legislation.
Everyone should feel safe and confident when using pavements in
their local area, but so many people, including many families
walking to school, are suffering. People like my constituents
Laurel and Margaret are suffering from social isolation and a
loss of independence due to the lack of action on this issue.
People with disabilities must not be an afterthought, so I hope
that the Government will stop taking them for a ride, crack on
and address their concerns.
5.12pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ()
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (), who is my constituency
neighbour, on securing this Adjournment debate on what is
genuinely a very important issue—I do not diminish it in any way
whatsoever. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Manchester,
Gorton () has also previously raised
this matter in the House. I have had my brief for about 100 days,
and have taken the trouble to read transcripts of the previous
debates.
I am also acutely conscious that a vast amount of evidence has
been provided by a large number of organisations. Like the hon.
Lady, I have met Guide Dogs UK, and I know that this is a very
serious issue that affects individuals up and down the country in
a genuine and serious way, including people who are disabled,
those who have children, those with prams and buggies, those who
are walking their dog and those who are engaging in active
travel, for which I am also the Minister. We have increased the
budget for encouraging active travel by 10, and we are trying to
persuade people to get behind it, so I do not want to diminish
the importance of this issue in any way. I acknowledge that it is
very serious.
As the hon. Member for Blaydon knows and has previously outlined,
there has been a total ban on pavement parking in London since
1974. However, to be fair, successive Governments of different
political persuasions have decided since 1974 that there should
not be a nationwide ban. That is partly because London is clearly
a different environment from other parts of the country,
particularly in terms of rurality. However, she will also be
aware—I am repeating things that both she and the hon. Member for
Manchester, Gorton know—that there are traffic regulation orders,
as well as prescribed traffic signs and bay markings.
To give some context, the Transport Select Committee’s report in
September 2019 was highly detailed and took huge amounts of
evidence, and to a certain extent triggered the Government to
respond. That Committee sought reform of the TRO process, a
change in the legislation governing the enforceable offences of
obstructive pavement parking—as I will deal with later, that
legislation is not simple by any stretch of the imagination—and
consideration of a nationwide ban in some shape or form.
As a result, and following consideration and, rightly, extensive
debate in the House on an ongoing basis, there was the
consultation. As the hon. Member for Blaydon says, 15,000 people
responding to a Government consultation is probably more than any
other that I am aware of—certainly in the transport space. When I
was the Employment Minister, I was not aware of such detailed
consultations. Clearly, there are some that do generate more than
that, but this was not just on the three main points, because
bear in mind that there were 15,000 responses on 15 different
issues. That produced, as she rightly outlined, thousands of
pieces of individual feedback, all of which need to be read and
analysed. An awful lot of different Departments need to consider
different matters, and local authorities are utterly key to that,
as is the Department for Transport and the like.
I want to make the point that we understand the issues, and if we
did not understand them before the consultation, we most
definitely do now. There are obviously inherent dangers for all
pedestrians, and the hon. Lady rightly identified the particular
situations for her constituents, for whom I have genuine
sympathy. However, it must be recognised that many towns and
cities—as was clearly set out in the Transport Committee report
and the consultation the Government undertook—are not designed to
accommodate today’s traffic levels, and in some locations the
pavement is the only place to park without obstructing the
carriageway, not least because there needs to be a free flow of
traffic for the emergency services, which is a factor that the
Government have to consider.
I understand that issue, and I understand that one of the
proposals is to have a blanket ban, but allow opt-outs in
particular circumstances. That is clearly necessary, and I do not
think anyone is arguing that there are not circumstances in which
that would be the case. However, this is sounding as though we
are not getting to a conclusion and that we are not going to have
a decision on this issue, because it is too difficult. Is that
right?
No, I think that is a slightly unfair, with great respect. I
endorse entirely the comments of my noble Friend , who responded to that
specific point in the House of Lords very recently. He
specifically said that the Government were coming to a conclusion
very soon. I have unquestionably become aware of that since
having taken up this post, and it will unquestionably be decided
in the very near future. I do not want the hon. Lady to walk away
from this debate thinking that this is not under
consideration.
As the hon. Lady knows, existing legislation allows local
authorities to introduce traffic regulation orders to manage
traffic. Examples are one-way streets or banned turns, and the
TROs also allow local authorities the freedom to decide if and
how they wish to restrict pavement parking in their local area.
However, we acknowledge—and the consultation clearly shows—that
the process of making a TRO can be time-consuming and burdensome
for local authorities, and it is clear that that requires reform.
What reform looks like is not simple, but we unquestionably feel
there is a capability to do that. There is also scope to reduce
the cost of this process, because there is undoubtedly a lot
bureaucracy and time that goes with it. If one could introduce a
digitised, non-paper-based system, that would speed up
applications and clearly make communication better. There is a
clause to make that change in the Automated Vehicles Bill, which
is going through the House and had its Second Reading earlier
this week, and that will make it quicker and cheaper for local
authorities to implement TROs.
The second recommendation was about unnecessary obstruction of
the road. There are already some criminal offences in this space,
and we are looking at how we amend the regulations to make
unnecessary obstruction of the pavement enforceable by local
authorities, while leaving obstruction of the carriageway,
rightly, as a criminal matter. This would label civil enforcement
officers to address instances of unnecessarily obstructive
pavement parking, as and when they find it. The enforcement of
these offences would be more targeted than for a general
prohibition of pavement parking.
The Minister has accepted that we have laws in London but not in
the rest of the country. Would it not be consistent to have the
same law across the board? After all, London is not the only
important city. Cities such as Manchester or Birmingham are also
important.
This option has challenges. Parking offences currently subject to
local authority civil enforcement are violations of clearly
defined restrictions indicated by traffic signs and road
markings. By contrast, unnecessary obstruction that could not be
indicated by traffic signs or bay marking as an obstruction is a
general offence, which may occur anywhere. That is difficult to
define and will require case-by-case assessment. The Department
will likely need to issue very specific guidance to steer local
authorities on what might be deemed unnecessary obstruction in
order to prevent inappropriate and inconsistent enforcement.
The third option is a national prohibition. That is being
considered, but there was considerable pushback against it in
certain circumstances. As the hon. Member for Blaydon outlined,
one would have to assess how it would possible in circumstances
where there are significant and large local authorities,
particularly rural ones, which would struggle to make the
specific decisions on exemptions. However, we are looking at that
particular situation to make a decision on where pavement parking
would be necessary. A local authority would have to limit the
necessary exemptions, and install traffic signs and bay marking
to indicate all the places where pavement parking was to be
permitted. That would be extremely difficult, particularly in
rural areas. However, it is not by any stretch impossible.
Consideration also needs to be given to whether a ban would be
disproportionate. I mentioned the rurality issue, but I want to
finish on one key point. One can talk about the relative merits
or otherwise of local government, and whether the London approach
is the panacea that we all seek to say it is, but this is
ultimately about the personal responsibility of the vehicle
owner. I really want to ram home the point that, as is set out in
the gospel, “do unto others as you would have done to
yourself.”
rose—
I will not take a further intervention. It is unquestionably the
case that we need to send a strong message to the drivers of this
country that it is incumbent upon them to park responsibly, to
look after their neighbour, and to be conscious of the wider
impacts of their decision to own a car, so that in their street
and community, they are accommodating the people who are
struggling.
Question put and agreed to.
|
