Deregulation Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

I think we may be about to have a dialogue. I used to be a councillor in Cambridge and we spent a lot of time stopping people driving over 30 miles an hour because of Mr Toad characters who wanted to go at 40 miles an hour.

If we go too far down this road we would have to have a little leaflet about every town that we visit about parking on the pavement or not parking on the pavement. In the country as a whole, we need to have some broad rules. If a city does not allow you to park on the pavement, that should be stated very clearly as you enter the city. It is very important to have broad rules in a country, otherwise we begin to be like countries several hundred years ago when every city had different rules. We should have a broad rule and then local authorities should have the power to exempt, but there needs to be some information.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and already spoken to. I feel nervous about standing between two noble friends. Luckily, I am not right between them, so I feel safe at the end of the Table. Also, it is a pleasure to be speaking to my noble friend the Minister. Two hours ago we were speaking on sport and now we are on parking. We should all bow down in awe at the extent of his knowledge and the range of expertise demonstrated in just one afternoon.

We all know very well that there are three subjects never to be discussed in polite conversation. I would certainly add a fourth, parking, to that. It raises temperatures—sometimes justifiably and sometimes the solution is actually in the hands of the person holding the steering wheel at that particular moment. Looking at the amendment, the situation is clearly set out and has worked not just perfectly but incredibly well in London since 1974. It has not impacted on the economic, social or cultural success of this great city. I would never say that what is good enough in London is good enough everywhere, but it is a very useful case in point to consider.

As a guide dog user, I obviously have a particular interest in this. In many cities and towns that I go to, trying to walk along the pavement is impossible. One steps out to avoid one car then realises that there is a second, third and fourth car and one is walking down the centre of the road while the cars are on the pavement. What a curious world one has entered there. It is almost as if pink flamingos are used as mallets for croquet and we are all diving down rabbit holes when we have reached a change of roles to that extent.

It is not just about visually impaired people, though—it is about the very nature and essence of inclusion. If you have a pushchair or pram, or you are walking with friends or family, if you have toddlers or if you are on a mobility scooter, if you are a pedestrian you should be able to access and enjoy the environment on the pavement. The clue is really in the name, “pavement”; it is not a carriageway. The Americans get it quite well—it is a sidewalk, not a side road or a side car park. That is where we should aim to guarantee everybody free, unimpeded access along the pavements, not just of London but across the entire nation. As we have already heard, there is a very clear local element here. Politics is nothing if it not only listens but acts locally. This amendment offers the right local solution to enable unimpeded access of the pavements up and down this nation.

I turn to the economics of it. Pavements are not designed for cars. Unsurprisingly, they crack and the tarmac sinks and they become not only unsightly but dangerous for pedestrians. Between 2006 and 2010, £1 billion was spent on pavement repairs as a result of parking. That figure does not even cover the costs that we can all only think about of people who have had to bring claims against local authorities for having been injured on pavements that have broken down as a result of people parking on them. Again with reference to the local agenda, that is why it is hardly surprising that 78% of local councillors believe that there should be prevention of pavement parking, as is the case in Greater London.

There is an economic argument and a social argument, as well as a legal argument. It would be good if my noble friend could strongly consider the wording set out in this amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is an important amendment, and we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for moving it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Low. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we all signed up to the Private Member’s Bill, which has stalled at the other end but is due for a Second Reading in January.

Under the existing legislation, it is illegal to drive on pavements and footpaths, but there is no specific prohibition against pavement parking. The ambiguity in the law means that most local authorities struggle to enforce restrictions, in contrast to London, which has operated a separate system since 1974. I understand that there are also exemptions in place in Exeter and Worcester. As the campaigning charity, Living Streets, said in written evidence to the Transport Select Committee:

“Inconsiderate parking can cause a major barrier to many vulnerable road users. It is clear that the current legislative situation relying on police enforcement isn’t working”.

Of course, there are some areas where parking on the pavement is unavoidable, and there are other legitimate reasons why it might sometimes be necessary—but all too often parking on the pavement obstructs access to pedestrians, forcing them to navigate busy and dangerous roads instead. Some 74% of adults report being forced to walk on the road because the pavement was being obstructed by cars and other vehicles. For some, pavement parking can effectively extinguish their right of way altogether. I refer to elderly people, people with buggies and those with disabilities. For them, cars that block the pavement can be a serious restriction on their freedom of movement.

I know that the measure proposed today has the support of the Guide Dogs UK, Age UK and several other organisations referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Banks of parked cars can also force cyclists to swerve into dangerous traffic flows, which can be especially dangerous on narrow roads. Pavements are not designed to bear the weight of cars, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, just said, let alone heavier goods vehicles; over time, they can become degraded, posing additional challenges for pedestrians and costs for local authorities.

The reality of the problem is not in contention, I suggest. In 2006, the Transport Select Committee said that the then Government,

“must grip the problem of pavement parking once and for all and ensure that it is outlawed throughout the country … rather than relying on the use of individual Traffic Regulation Orders on specific streets and local Acts to impose”,

a fine. Last year, the Transport Select Committee called for reform to end,

“a confusing patchwork approach across the country”,

and for a clarification of the rules for loading and unloading by haulage companies, and action to rectify the long-standing problems over poor signage. It is important that, even as the Government try to move towards allowing more diverse road signs from local authorities, common national standards can be agreed on this issue.

The status quo brings challenges for drivers as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The British Parking Association and the RAC Foundation all support the calls for change. Inappropriately parking vehicles can interfere with traffic flows for other road users, causing jams and congestion, and drivers are often unsure about restrictions—and which, if any, are in place. Given the growth in congestion on many of our roads, these problems are likely to be magnified in the years ahead.

The Government also seem to be in agreement, on the principle at least, that pavement parking is a problem that needs to be addressed. The amendment gives the Minister and the Government ample opportunity to do so. I urge them to take it.

Voluntary and Charitable Sectors

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market for bringing to the House a debate of such significance. Its subject touches all our lives and communities. Imagine Britain without scouts and guides, youth clubs or sports clubs. Imagine our schools with no governors, our legal system without the magistracy and our coastline unpatrolled by the brave men and women of the RNLI. Britain without volunteers is not Britain.

When I started the bid for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2003, we knew that we had to get 70,000 volunteers to make our Games not just good but great. That number terrified many people: could we get them, could we get the quality and would they stick with us through the journey? Many of us knew, though, that there would be no difficulty. In fact, we would be heavily oversubscribed time and again. We had more than 250,000 applications, all from potentially great volunteers. We set up centres around the country to ensure that we would get the very best of the best. We thought, “Let’s not call them volunteers; let’s really emphasise the role that these people play”, so we came up with “Games makers”. These people would be the beating heart, the smiling face and the lifeblood of London 2012, and what a fantastic group of people we got together. If you came to the Games and wanted directions, wanted your ticket checked or wanted to know where to get food or how to find your seat, most likely it was a smiling, committed, trained, happy volunteer who gave you that information. They were what made London 2012 what it was, and they were mentioned by the media, the broadcasters and everyone who touched, experienced or witnessed 2012. It was all about the Games makers. Many people planned their retirement to start with a role as a Games maker. What a brilliant way to begin that next chapter of someone’s life, and how fantastic to have the Olympic and Paralympic Games as the first part of your retirement, that next stage of your career into the future. Many of them still cherish those shirts, those trainers and the lanyard. They became a very close family and showed Britain at its very best.

I should like to mention a charity that I am involved with. I am privileged to be one of the ambassadors of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, a charity established to mark Her Majesty’s 60 years on the throne and effectively to raise £100 million to spend across the Commonwealth to make a massive step towards eradicating avoidable blindness and to put into youth projects across the Commonwealth. Tens of millions of people across the Commonwealth are blind but 80% of that blindness is avoidable. The Diamond Jubilee Trust, under the excellent leadership of Sir John Major, is aiming over the next five years to make a massive impact on helping to make avoidable blindness a thing of the past.

Similarly, we are investing in youth programmes across the Commonwealth. A big scheme is going to be launched in two weeks’ time as so many people across the Commonwealth—some 60%—are under the age of 30. This heightens all the issues around education, employment and social inclusion, particularly in some of the African nations. We are looking to make a massive impact to ensure that the future for all those young people is brighter than it otherwise might be had we not got involved.

As set out in the register, I am also a trustee of the Nick Webber Trust in Malawi—a trust we established after a friend of mine was killed while in Malawi doing pro bono work. I started at my law firm on the same day as Nick. We set up a trust to get involved in legal aid and education. It really demonstrates what can be done with few resources but massive commitment from volunteers. We established the first law library in Malawi. We educate street kids who otherwise would have no education. We were asked whether we could build a new school. Again, initially this terrified us until we realised that the costs were relatively tiny compared with what they might be in this country. It is the effort and the commitment of the trustees and volunteers that has made so much possible in that country. That is the crucial point. Charitable giving, charitable work and volunteering should not, in any sense, be seen as purely altruistic or a one-way street. It is mutually enriching.

In conclusion, I cannot think of a better place to end than with the words of Mahatma Gandhi—we find ourselves when we lose ourselves in the service of others.