Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) In my time in this House, I
have been lucky to obtain a number of Adjournment debates, but
never before has one generated quite the same level of response as
this one. This issue has a daily impact on constituents and makes
their lives materially worse. For some constituents, it is beyond
frustrating and actively stops them from enjoying the things that
many of us take for granted. That includes people who have mobility
impairments, who...Request free trial
(Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
In my time in this House, I have been lucky to obtain a number of
Adjournment debates, but never before has one generated quite the
same level of response as this one. This issue has a daily impact
on constituents and makes their lives materially worse. For some
constituents, it is beyond frustrating and actively stops them
from enjoying the things that many of us take for granted. That
includes people who have mobility impairments, who are blind or
partially sighted, and people who are neurodiverse.
I heard from my constituent, Barbara, who told me about the
difficulties she had getting to the supermarket when she was in a
wheelchair. Carolyn told me she is finding it harder to take out
her mum, another wheelchair user, on walks to Alexandra Park. New
parents like Hafsa, Jack and Antony told me how difficult it was
to navigate parked cars with a pushchair, and the dangers of
having to take their children into the road to get around.
(Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate
on pavement parking. Sadly, it is an issue that affects people in
my constituency daily. Does he agree that ultimately what we need
to rid our towns and villages of this problem is behaviour
change? The question is how we get people to stop inconsiderate,
selfish and dangerous parking that blocks paths for pedestrians,
wheelchair users, pushchairs and guide dogs. Sadly, appealing to
people’s better nature does not always seem to be effective, so
does he agree that we need councils and police forces to be
properly resourced so that they can issue fines, put signs up,
repaint lines and work with local businesses, which should also
remind customers about not parking on pavements, for the good and
the safety of all our communities?
I agree wholeheartedly and thank my hon. Friend for her amazing
hard work in her constituency. I will be covering the issues she
raises in my speech.
I have heard from my local council about missed bin collections
and expensive damage to pavement surfaces. Walk Ride Whalley
Range in my constituency commissioned its own local research; the
response was that pavement parking not only is an issue for those
with disabilities or young children, but encourages speeding and
reckless driving in neighbourhoods. It discourages people from
choosing active travel alternatives to cars, such as walking and
cycling, and prevents people from accessing public transport.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is
absolutely right that there is a very clear safety issue. If cars
are parked on the pavement, that means that women with prams,
ladies who are walking and blind people with their guide dogs
have to go on the road, thereby endangering them. Does he
agree—perhaps the Minister will address this point, too—that
safety has to be paramount? People have to be considerate of
others. Back home, whenever I have brought these things to the
attention of the police, they have gone out and enforced the
rules with tickets. Maybe that needs to be done here as well.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and will expand on
some of those points.
I know that local councillors across my constituency have worked
hard to tackle the issue, despite not having the right tools to
do the job. For example, they have joined efforts to leave notes
on parked cars to remind drivers to think about the impact of
their parking on other road users.
Most streets in my constituency were constructed before car
ownership became common. There are many narrow terrace streets
and houses without drives or garages. There needs to be a much
wider debate about how a reduction can be achieved in car use in
cities, but I want to focus on this one specific issue today. Our
starting point must be that footpaths and pavements are for
people walking or wheeling, not for vehicles.
(Brentford and Isleworth)
(Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an issue
that has united Members of all parties across the House. Does he
agree that the best solution already exists in London, where we
have had a default ban on pavement parking for decades, and where
local authorities can work with residents on exemptions where
there is no choice? It is about time the Government responded to
the consultations that took place more than two years ago and
brought something in across the country similar to what we
already have in London.
I agree. That is exactly the point I will make: we need to move
forward, because we should not be still waiting. What is good
enough for London is surely good enough for the rest of the
UK.
In 2020, the Government held a consultation called “Pavement
parking: options for change”. There have been written questions
on when we can expect the outcome of the consultation; the
response every time is “As soon as possible.” We are now on our
fifth responsible Minister since the consultation closed.
Government instability aside, surely the Minister agrees that two
years, three months and 19 days is more than enough time to
prepare a response. I hope he will be able to make “as soon as
possible” mean sooner rather than later.
PATROL, a joint committee of local authorities—the name stands
for Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London—points out
that it is a misconception that all pavement parking is currently
legal outside London. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986 make it clear that causing “unnecessary
obstruction” of the highway by a stationary vehicle is a criminal
offence. However, because it is a criminal offence, only the
police have the power to issue penalty notices. The truth is that
this is not a priority for the police and, to be honest, I do not
blame them for that. After all, since 2011, Greater Manchester
police have seen real-terms cuts of more than £215 million, with
2,000 fewer officers. They simply do not have the capacity. The
current law is also ambiguous. The word “unnecessary” is
subjective and leads to significant confusion among drivers: a
study by YouGov found that 46% of them were confused by current
laws.
The real difference between London and the rest of England lies
in the fact that the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act
1974 created an unambiguous offence which authorities are
confident to enforce and which, moreover, is also enforceable by
local councils, rather than just the police. There is widespread
agreement that we must bring the rest of England into line with
London.
(Blaydon) (Lab)
My first Adjournment debate in the Chamber was about the issue of
pavement parking. We were told that there would be a response
very soon. Is it not now essential, for the sake of people such
as Laurel, a blind constituent of mine who has a guide dog, for
these laws to be introduced?
I entirely agree.
While it is already possible for councils to issue a traffic
regulation order, there are drawbacks to the process which make
it not only an unsustainable option for local authorities, but
one that is unlikely to drive widespread behavioural change. The
cost of permanent TROs can be astronomical. There is a clear need
for a separate review of TROs to bring the process into the 21st
century. They are rightly only enforceable when clearly signed,
but that is yet another expense, and the overall cost makes them
suitable only for a narrow and targeted approach. It would never
be possible to create a TRO preventing pavement parking covering
the entire city of Manchester, for example. If an order is
applied to just one small area, the problem may shift to a nearby
area without changing driver behaviour.
What is needed is a national approach that sets an expectation
for all drivers everywhere. One way of achieving that would be to
amend the Traffic Management Act 2004 to add obstruction to the
list of offences to which civil enforcement applies. This would
be imperfect, but would allow local authorities to issue fines,
and would give councils outside London the first ingredient in
the recipe that their counterparts in the capital enjoy: the
power to enforce. We would also need a second ingredient, a lack
of ambiguity. However, there should be very few circumstances in
which obstructing the pavement is necessary, and we must set
clear expectations on that to change driver behaviour.
A step beyond would be the introduction of a default ban on
pavement parking across England through primary legislation,
which is the approach now being taken by Scotland. The main
benefit would be the creation of a simple, uniform and easily
understood system, allowing for exceptions to suit local
circumstances. I appreciate that that might take more time, which
is why I hope the Government might make use of intermediate
options now to begin to tackle the issue as soon as possible.
Any of these options will need to be accompanied by more
resources: resources for national and local information campaigns
on how the law is changing, and resources for local authorities
for the purpose of enforcement. Only by doing both can we change
behaviour for the better, and we cannot expect local authorities
to foot the bill when they have already faced millions of pounds
of cuts forced on them by Conservative and Lib Dem Governments
since 2010.
There is a clear and widespread desire for change across the
country. We must do better to make our streets usable for people
walking or wheeling, and create an environment that is for the
many, not the few. That will mean more people on foot, on bikes
and on public transport, fewer cars and healthier, cleaner
air.
11.10pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ( )
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton () on his speech today and on
bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I have a
constituency similar to his with a lot of 19th century terraced
housing, which is also similar to the constituencies of the hon.
Members for Blaydon () and for Batley and Spen (). I also thank the hon.
Members for Brentford and Isleworth () and for Strangford () for contributing to the debate.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned his constituents
Barbara, Carolyn, Hafsa, Jack and Antony. I also have several
constituents who regularly contact me about this matter, so I
know that there is concern across the House about it and we all
want to see positive change. I would like to make it clear that
the Government are determined to ensure that disabled people have
the same access to transport as everyone else and that they can
travel easily, with confidence and without extra cost. That is
why the Government’s inclusive transport strategy aims to create
a transport system that provides equal access for disabled people
by 2030, with assistance if physical infrastructure remains a
barrier. I am delighted also to be the accessibility champion for
the Department.
We also want to make walking and cycling the natural first choice
for shorter journeys wherever possible. We have set an ambitious
vision that by 2030 half of all journeys in towns and cities will
be either cycled or walked. To help to deliver that, Active
Travel England was launched in August 2020 to work with local
authorities to develop and deliver new high-quality walking and
cycling infrastructure schemes.
We all welcome the words about active travel that the Minister
has just read out, so why is the budget for Active Travel
England, which was launched only last year, being cut by two
thirds?
Mr Holden
I cannot speculate on what is going to be in the Budget, and I
would urge hon. Members to wait and see what is going to happen
later in the week. What I would say is that we have placed huge
emphasis on this area already, with major investment going on
across the country, and we expect to spend around £850 million by
the end of this year, which is a record amount of funding. That
represents a step change from previous Governments and
Administrations of all colours in this space, and I expect to see
that continue.
Recently in Parliament, I met Matthew Campbell-Hill, the new
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee chairman, and
Cameron Wood, a constituent of the Minister of State, Department
for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and
South Herefordshire (), who are both actively
campaigning on this issue. They highlighted to me, as has
happened in other recent meetings I have had in Parliament, the
real issues that pavement parking can cause for pedestrians and
people with buggies and prams, but particularly for disabled
people with sight or mobility impairments. This is an issue I
have been campaigning on in my own constituency as well, where
the blind community is particularly prominent in the town of
Dipton.
Pavement parking has been prohibited in London since 1974, except
where councils choose to permit it by implementing exemptions and
erecting the necessary traffic signs. There is no specific ban
outside London, but councils can implement local pavement parking
prohibitions through traffic regulation orders, as well as
prescribed traffic signs and bay markings. It is also the case
that waiting restrictions such as yellow lines can apply to
pavements as well as to the carriageway.
The Transport Committee reported on pavement parking in September
2019, with the key recommendation that the Government bring
forward proposals to reform the TRO process to make it cheaper
and easier for local authorities to use. Having seen it myself, I
know that the process clearly needs reform. The Committee also
recommended that the Government consult on a new civilly
enforceable offence of obstructive pavement parking, and that we
legislate across England, outside London, to address this issue
more broadly.
Although successive Governments have recognised that there is no
perfect solution to this difficult problem, the Government
believed in 2020 that it was time to look again at the issue in
detail. I am delighted to say that we had over 15,000 responses
to the consultation, and each respondent was given the chance to
answer up to 15 questions, providing tens of thousands of pieces
of feedback and information, all of which needed to be read and
analysed. Although I do not think I can please the hon. Gentleman
as much as I would like by saying that we will imminently publish
our formal response to the consultation, it is a very real and
complex problem that we are looking to address at the earliest
opportunity. I am actively working on this inside the
Department.
At the moment, there are inherent dangers for all pedestrians
from pavement parking, including being forced on to the
carriageway. This is an issue faced by many disabled people,
particularly those using motorised chairs when there are no
dropped kerbs, resulting in further damage to pavements, which is
a trip hazard. Maintenance is also a burden for local authorities
and local taxpayers.
It also needs to be recognised that many towns and cities like
ours were not designed to accommodate today’s traffic levels, or
indeed cars per se. In some locations, particularly our narrower
terraced streets, the pavement is the only place to park without
obstructing the carriageway and so allow the free flow of
traffic, including for emergency services.
All the measures on which we consulted have challenges in respect
of efficacy and deliverability, and we want to take the right
steps for future policy. Existing legislation allows local
authorities to introduce TROs to manage traffic, and it allows
them the freedom to decide what they wish to do at a local level.
As the hon. Gentleman said, however, the process is
time-consuming and burdensome. We recognise that it has to be
reformed, as it is hugely important, and the Department is
committed to doing that.
Removing bureaucracy and digitalising a costly, paper-based
system is desperately needed to help speed up applications and
the process more broadly. This will make it quicker and cheaper
for local authorities to implement TROs. We need to reduce the
average wait time of six months, which is far too burdensome and
bureaucratic. At the moment it takes 12 weeks even for temporary
TROs. We estimate that this could easily be reduced by a third,
with resultant savings in both administrative costs and time.
Digitalised TROs will also provide accurate digital data on how
our roads operate, which will be needed to support autonomous
vehicles in the longer term, and they will help to provide
accurate information to road users in the shorter term. We are
actively looking at this at the moment.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton also mentioned the second
recommendation on the offence of unnecessary obstruction of the
road. I agree with him and other hon. Members that this is a
broad and not well understood area of law. The offence includes
the carriageway, verges and pavement, and it already exists as a
criminal offence. We could amend the regulations to make
unnecessary obstruction of the pavement enforceable by local
authorities, while leaving obstruction of the carriageway as a
criminal matter. That would enable civil enforcement officers to
address instances of unnecessarily obstructive pavement parking,
as and when they find it. Enforcement against this offence would
be more targeted than a general prohibition of pavement parking.
This would allow egregious cases to be addressed while not
penalising motorists where pavement parking is the only option,
and where it is safe for pedestrians and other road users. This
could be implemented relatively quickly, as it would require only
secondary legislation. Through this approach, pavement parking
would not become a general offence, so local authorities would
not need to conduct costly and time-consuming audits of their
road networks, nor would it be necessary to place traffic signs
and bay markings to indicate where pavement parking was still
permitted.
However, there is a challenge with this option. Parking offences
currently subject to local authority civil enforcement are
violations of clearly defined restrictions indicated by traffic
signs and road markings, such as yellow lines or white bay
markings. By contrast, unnecessary obstruction could not be
indicated by traffic signs or bay markings, as “obstruction” is a
general offence that may occur anywhere. As the hon. Gentleman
mentioned, “unnecessary obstruction” is also difficult to define.
It would require case-by-case assessment and the Department would
likely need to issue properly extensive guidance to steer local
authorities in the right way as to what might be deemed
unnecessary obstruction, in order to prevent inappropriate and
inconsistent enforcement. Any such inconsistency would also
ensure that our mailbags were overflowing with correspondence
from people rightly concerned about that issue.
The third option, which we have also consulted on, is a national
prohibition, extending the London arrangements to the rest of the
country or making local authorities able to implement this as
they see fit. That option would establish a general rule against
pavement parking except where there is a specific permission of a
local authority, or vice versa. I think we would all agree that
motorists would also benefit from a consistent rule in this
space. That option would need a significant implementation
period. Furthermore, it would require primary legislation, as the
hon. Gentleman noted. Local authorities would need to audit their
road networks to decide where pavement parking remained
necessary, implement the necessary exemptions, and place traffic
signs and bay markings to indicate all the places where pavement
parking was to be permitted—or vice-versa, depending on which
route we went down.
Consideration also needs to be given to whether it would be
disproportionate to ban pavement parking across the whole
country. For example, in rural areas the scale of the road
network would mean that the costs of implementing a national ban
in this way would be higher, while the issues caused by pavement
parking are often likely to be lower, especially on verges in
some rural communities. This is a complex area and it is only
right that we are thorough in taking our time to consider it.
The Minister has explained clearly the difficulties with
different schemes. Are the Government intending to come forward
with any proposals to help my constituents and others who have
the difficulties in coping with pavement parking?
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady rightly presses me on this point. There are things
I am actively considering in this area, and these are interim
steps. Primary legislation is a long-term aim in this area, but
there are certainly things we can do in the interim and things I
hope to bring forward in the not-too-distant future.
Overall, local authorities are clearly in the best position to
decide where pavement parking should or should not be permitted
in their local areas, especially outside London, which is an
urban conurbation. It is the Department’s role to ensure they
have appropriate and effective tools to prohibit pavement parking
where desired. I am fully aware that the Department’s response to
the consultation is eagerly awaited, as has been made clear by
hon. Members today. Although I cannot pre-empt publication of the
Department’s consultation response, I am actively working on
this, not just on the primary legislation, but on other measures
that could be put in place in the interim period. All the options
have challenges in respect of efficacy and deliverability, and it
is our job to weigh up all of that and take the right steps
forward. We are working through the options and the possible
legislative opportunities for delivering them, and as soon as
those matters are certain, we will publish the formal response.
Although I cannot say this evening exactly when that will be, and
I am sorry to let the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton and
others down on that, I assure them that this matter is receiving
our full consideration. It is a priority for us and we are aiming
to publish as soon as is practically possible.
Question put and agreed to.
|
