Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There was necessary consideration of whether a money resolution was needed for that Bill. The House authorities have confirmed that no money resolution is needed for the Bill to enter Committee and I have now instructed officials to table the motion that will facilitate the establishment of another Committee so that the Bill can proceed.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As the Leader of the House will be aware, the Procedure Committee recommended, as part of its inquiry into private Members’ Bills procedure, that if a money resolution has not been tabled by a Minister within three weeks of Second Reading, a written ministerial statement should be made setting out the reasons for the delay. Does he think that that would be a sensible change to introduce?

[Mr Hague]

I am certainly aware of that recommendation of the Procedure Committee, and my hon. Friend is right to remind the House of it. There may be a variety of views in the House on it. It is important for Ministers to explain why, in one way or another, when a money resolution is not granted, as I have done for the Bills in question during this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

If the hon. Lady has issues about the speed with which questions are being answered or their content, that is clearly a matter she can raise with the Procedure Committee. It is best that she provides the background information, but if she wants to provide me with the examples she has mentioned, I would be happy to follow them up with the relevant Secretaries of the State.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May I follow up that point and remind the House that in recent months the Procedure Committee has invited two Secretaries of the State and their permanent secretaries to appear before it to explain their lack of performance? If Members of any party have any concerns about the content or timeliness of their answers, they should bring the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

[Tom Brake]

I am grateful for that point of clarification or information. When Departments want to respond promptly, they can do so. I have frequently quoted the ability of the Department of Health, for example, to respond to 99% of questions within the appropriate time scales, and I am now happy to be able to refer to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has been able to respond to 100% of them within the appropriate time scales.

Road Investment Strategy

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have already spoken to my hon. Friend, who came to see me a few weeks ago, about the Cambridge to Milton Keynes route, which, for him, is a first move in the right direction. He is absolutely right about what we have to do in the longer term on a road investment strategy. We have done it for the railways and we should be very pleased that we are going to do it for roads in future. These schemes do not happen overnight—they take planning. It is right that we try to take local communities along with us wherever we can and gather support for sensible proposals, so that we are not rushing forward and turning the tap on and off, but ensuring that people can see that this forms part of an overall strategy.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The improvement of the M60 will of course be very warmly welcomed by my constituents, especially those who regularly have to commute around Manchester, but for the next two years things are going to get worse—probably much worse. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that, as far as possible, the works will be completed on time, and that while they are ongoing every effort will be made to keep disruption to a minimum?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is talking about junction 8 of the M60, as well as junctions 20, 10 to 12, 24 to 27 and 1 to 4 of the M62. I appreciate and accept that while these works go on, there is disruption. First and foremost, I ask the Highways Agency to try to be as communicative with travelling passengers and motorists as possible so that they know where the troubles are going to be. It is very difficult to undertake upgrade works and not cause some disruption. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk to the chief executive of the Highways Agency to see whether we can do as much as possible on this concern for the travelling public.

Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz]

There is no reason why the Bill should be delayed if people approach it constructively. A Bill is currently being proposed in the Scottish Parliament by a Scottish National party MSP, Sandra White, and has support across the spectrum, including from Conservative MSPs. It has reached a point of being unable to proceed further because of conflicting legal opinion. Because of his legal background, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) will be aware that with issues such as parking fines, even of the smallest nature, or some other infraction of the Road Traffic Act 1991, some people will go to any length to appeal. No one would want there to be a challenge some years down the road because of some dubiety about the legislation.

I believe that there will be a no vote in a couple of weeks’ time. I am proceeding on that basis and hope that Government Members will do so as well. The Bill in the Scottish Parliament has all-party support and support from a wide range of non-governmental organisations, but at the moment it is basically stuck because of conflicting legal opinions in the Scottish Parliament.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will make a bit more progress. Perhaps I will take interventions at the end of my remarks if I have time.

My Bill aims to cut through the thicket of legal argument by making it clear that the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence in this area. It would devolve to the Scottish Parliament, should it so wish, the power to introduce regulations to make irresponsible parking a criminal offence by amending schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, and to exclude from the reservations to the UK Parliament provisions relating to parking on pavements and related issues. If the Scottish Parliament chooses to do so, that would include the power to impose fixed penalties.

I emphasise again that the Bill does not change the law on irresponsible or obstructive parking in Scotland, but it makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament can do so if it wishes. I want it to be able to do that without any risk of legal challenge, because many of our constituents feel strongly about this issue and I expect it has been raised with many Members in their constituencies.

Let me be clear: I am talking not about off-road parking that causes no inconvenience to anyone, but parking that blocks entire pavements or impedes wheelchair users from using ramps, which is frankly a public nuisance. Even worse, such behaviour can be a potential cause of danger to pedestrians, particularly those who are visually impaired or disabled in some way. If blind or partially sighted people are forced into the road to get by, they cannot see oncoming traffic. Equally, parking at dropped kerbs blocks the place where wheelchair users can cross the road most easily. It is not just the disabled who are affected by disruptive parking, but the elderly, parents with pushchairs, and children and pedestrians more generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

We won’t go there. It seems to have been an inability to move the Scottish Parliament forward. I recognise, particularly when the three wise men are in their places right at the back on the Government Benches—

[Mr Nuttall]

There are only two.

[Mr Brown]

Only two, is that right? Okay, in that case I will let the two argue it out with the other one.

The issue is not about clogging up the whole legislative programme; it is simply about deciding that this power could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am speaking at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition today, while the Government have a Transport Minister here. If the Bill were given a quick, clean bill of health, it would not fall to the Department for Transport to deal with, because the power would fall back through the Scotland Office. The Bill will not snarl up the programme of legislation for the Department for Transport.

If it comes down to money, we should look at the amount being spent by local authorities for dropped kerbs for people in wheelchairs and the like, and recognise that we still see inconsiderate behaviour by drivers who still block those kerbs. I emphasise again to Government Members that this is not a massive piece of legislation.

[Mr Nuttall]

I appreciate that this is not a massive piece of legislation, but could the shadow Minister give the House an idea of the extent of the problem in his constituency, representing, as he does, a Scottish constituency? Does he get a lot of complaints about this at his surgery, for example?

[Mr Brown]

I appreciate that my constituency is 300 miles away from here, but I think the experiences of my constituents who may use wheelchairs and such like is the same as that of people the length and breadth of the UK. It is not as if this is a specific problem there, but I would be very surprised if Members on the Government Benches had not encountered problems, and even seen it with their own eyes and thought, “That’s a bit of bad parking.”

If this Bill is going to be talked out, I do not want that to come from me, however, so let me just say that this is about doing nothing more than devolving power to the Scottish Parliament to deal with this once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for the debate that we have had today. He clearly cares deeply about this important issue, and I commend him for the concern that he is showing. I should also thank my assiduous colleagues across the House for their interesting and thoughtful interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is no longer in his place, brought to the debate the benefit of his experience as a legal expert on all matters related to parking. He highlighted the point at the heart of the debate, which is the complexity of the legal and constitutional issues as they relate to this Parliament and to the one north of the border.

It was also interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I wonder whether he shares my view that devo-max sounds more like a new form of bathroom cleaner. It is a very clunky term, but it does point up the need and the desire for this issue to be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised the matter of the inconsistency in the application of laws north and south of the border, and I hope to be able to clarify that point in a moment.

I want to talk about the spirit behind the Bill, which I suspect all Members share. I also want to discuss the criminalisation of parking offences, which I believe the Bill seeks effectively to provide the headroom to do in Scotland. I also want to say a few words about the legal and constitutional question, although as Members and the occupant of the Speaker’s Chair will appreciate, this is not a time to be making policy announcements, given what is going to happen in less than two weeks’ time.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) spoke eloquently about the problems that parking on pavements causes for pedestrians, whether or not visually impaired; older pedestrians and ladies such as my mother, who are pushing along a mobility device, find it difficult to navigate, as do people with pushchairs. I well remember my experience as a mother of three bumping buggies up and down pavements, trying to find dropped kerbs. That is not easy, as soon as children get above six months old and, one cannot carry them in baby slings, and therefore they need to be on wheels.

I wonder whether other hon. Members recall during last year’s party conference season going to some of the fantastic stands put up by the association Guide Dogs to help us understand what living streets should look like. I note that Guide Dogs has challenged the Prime Minister not to the ice bucket challenge, although that cannot be far behind, but to a blindfolded walk—a chance for people from all walks of life, including Members, to get out there and experience the real impact of street clutter, including the challenge of vehicles parked on the pavement.

One thing the Bill and the debate have not touched on is the damage to pavements and the cost to local authorities of this irresponsible parking. It can be a serious problem in terms of maintaining road services and street services. I seek to reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and all Members across the House that I think everyone would agree with the spirit of what he is trying to achieve, which is to make parking more responsible, both north and south of the border, and to make the street journey of all sorts of pedestrians, including ladies and men with children, people in wheelchairs and people who are visually impaired, easier and safer.

[Mr Nuttall]

On this point about keeping pavements clear, is the Minister aware that following guidance from her Department on the removal of unnecessary signs on the pavement, more than 9,000 such signs have been removed, right across the United Kingdom?

[Claire Perry]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a detailed and well-made point. The Government strongly believe in removing all sorts of unnecessary street clutter, not only for pedestrians, but for drivers. The evidence base suggests that having more signs and confusing information reduces road safety, so I thank him for mentioning the work that is already being done.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has set out, his Bill seeks to devolve powers in relation to parking on pavements to the Scottish Parliament, enabling that body to legislate on this area and, specifically, to criminalise the act of parking on pavements—that is how I understand it. I will deal a little later with what happens in England. As he will know, that is complicated, as in some places there is a blanket ban on such parking and in other areas there is freedom to park on pavements, and we have a devolved approach on actually opting out of that. In some areas there are criminal sanctions, whereas in others there are civil sanctions. It is not clear that there is a role model south of the border for what he is trying to achieve with the Bill north of the border. I think what the Bill is trying to achieve is to clarify the legal position in this area—the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway referred to the ping-pong that has gone on between Parliaments for many years on this issue—to clear the way for the passing of a Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament on this matter.

Let me make brief reference to the Bill being presented by Sandra White, which intends to allow freedom of movement for all pedestrians by restricting parking at dropped kerbs, on pavements and double parking. The proposal was lodged on 24 January and although she has secured the right to introduce the Bill, it has not yet been introduced, despite having cross-party support. I suspect that, like me, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith shares some disappointment that it is not higher up the priority list for the Scottish Parliament, because that Bill could improve the passenger and pedestrian experiences for people north of the border.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, the legal situation as to who does what where in the parliamentary protocol is complicated. Under the Scotland Act 1998, transport in Scotland is, in general, the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, although some aspects remain reserved to the UK Parliament, including subjects covered by the Road Traffic Act 1998 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. For example, section 19 of the 1998 Act contains a provision relating to heavy goods vehicles parking on verges, central reservations and footways, so that remains a reserved matter for the UK Government.

Other legislation makes specific provision on parking. Section 43 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 gave the Secretary of State the power to create

“permitted and special parking areas outside London”

on application by local authorities. In those areas, certain offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and other Acts do not apply. Instead a penalty charge is payable by the owner of the vehicle. That continues to be enforced in Scotland, but in England and Wales it has been largely replaced by the Traffic Management Act 2004, which contains provision for parking on dropped footways in England and Wales.

In Scotland, the powers of the Secretary of State for Transport to make the permitted and special parking areas are exercised by Scottish Ministers. The Scottish statutory instrument made under the power states that the power was passed on devolution to Scottish Ministers.

I promised to set out the Government’s approach to parking policy in England, which may help to inform the debate. As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, we devolve responsibility to English local authorities for policy in respect of the provision of parking and parking facilities, such as the charge to park, the provision of bays, installing restrictions, and installing residents’ parking bays. What is proposed today is consistent with that policy of devolving power down to those who sit closest to the local road and pavement users in a particular area.

Local authorities implement local restrictions by traffic regulation orders for which they are responsible. The delivery of these local schemes is entirely in keeping with this Government’s commitment to decisions being taken at a local level. We are also committed to providing better scrutiny of those decisions.

Let me take a 30-second deviation to illustrate a local problem. In some areas of my constituency, including parking areas around Great Bedwyn station, there has been a long-running debate over residents’ parking bays and the traffic overflow that arises from free parking at that station.

On 30 August, the Department for Communities and Local Government published a discussion paper on a mechanism for giving a new right to local residents or local firms to raise a petition that will require a council review of the use of yellow lines or other parking provisions. I am sure that all Members will welcome the announcement made on 21 June regarding a package of measures to rein in over-zealous local parking practices. Those include restricting the use of CCTV for parking enforcement to schools, bus lanes, bus stops and red routes; introducing a new right to allow local residents and local firms to demand a review of parking in their area; reforming operational parking guidance so that it is less heavy-handed with motorists and positively supports local shops—something to which we are all passionately committed—introducing mandatory 10-minute “grace periods” at the end of on-street paid-for and free parking; and possibly a widening of the powers of parking adjudicators.

Turning back to the issue of civil versus criminalisation of parking offences, it may be worth noting that more than 90% of local authorities now enforce parking civilly. The Traffic Management Act 2004 imposes an explicit duty on local authorities to manage their network so as to reduce congestion and disruption. There are many advantages of civil parking enforcement rather than criminal enforcement, including the fact that local authorities are responsible for their local road network and therefore know best where the clutter and congestion are and where the pavements need to be clear. Of course that then frees up the police to focus their resources on the more serious matters. I am sure that will be a popular with many Members of this House. We want the police to be focused on the most serious crimes. Where we have the capacity, we want local authorities and others to carry out civil enforcement in a way that most benefits the local communities.

There are some endorseable parking offences. Broadly, those involve dangerous or obstructive parking, although there is often a lack of clarity over those offences. A driver's licence can be endorsed with penalty points or withdrawn.

Turning to Scotland, I have mentioned that Scottish Ministers have powers to make permitted and special parking areas in Scotland and therefore under the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme in Scotland any local authority can apply to Scottish Ministers for orders decriminalising certain parking offences. Under those parking enforcement regimes, a local authority can go out and place penalty charge notices on vehicles contravening parking regulations. That now applies to about half of the local authorities that are operating the system—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I was pleased that the Chancellor announced the regional connectivity fund. When I was at Newcastle airport in February, there was excitement about that. It is also looking to serve further routes. Although the limitation is for airports of fewer than 3 million passengers, there is a provision under exceptional circumstances to allow airports such as Newcastle with fewer than 5 million passengers to participate. We are having conversations with the European Commission to ensure that we can do something and that we do not breach any state aid rules.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

One way of encouraging airlines to establish new routes from regional airports is to allow them to operate free of air passenger duty for, say, the first two years. Will my hon. Friend discuss the possibility of introducing that measure with Treasury Ministers?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am sure Treasury questions will be along very soon, when my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to ask the Chancellor that very question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I am aware of that report. The only thing I will say is that people’s judgment of whether a response is satisfactory is down to them.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

What changes does the Deputy Leader of the House consider necessary to improve the quality of ministerial replies to written questions about the performance of agencies and non-departmental public bodies, because Ministers sometimes appear to be acting as no more than mailboxes?

[Tom Brake]

If there are individual cases that the hon. Gentleman would like to raise with me, I am happy to pursue them with the appropriate Departments and bodies. Of course, he has the opportunity to refer any concerns to the Procedure Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand that the pub in that particular case is at a motorway service area that is served by other roads as well as the motorway, and these decisions are a matter for local authorities. Every pub in the country is served by a road, and it is up to drivers to act responsibly and ensure that they do not drink and drive.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that expecting the police to enforce the proposed new offence of smoking in cars with children present will divert them away from other duties, which could have a direct impact on motorway safety?

[Mr Goodwill]

That is probably a matter for the Secretary of State for Health. There will be a free vote on Monday on that subject, and I will certainly be voting to ban smoking in cars where children are present, having had to sit in the back of the car at a young age feeling green and carsick while my father was puffing away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As a member of the Procedure Committee, perhaps I can help the Deputy Leader of the House. Will he use this opportunity to remind right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they are unhappy with a reply to a written question, because of a delay or the content, they can submit it to the Committee and we will look into and chase up those questions?

[Tom Brake]

Indeed; I am very happy to encourage Members to do that. The Procedure Committee looks at this matter in detail. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, if there are specific concerns about how Departments handle their replies, they are required to explain to the Procedure Committee why they have been unable to respond promptly.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady and the House will know, informing the House by means of a written statement is perfectly in order. As the Speaker himself said on 25 January last year, doing so is

“a legitimate vehicle for informing the House of ministerial decisions”.—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 302.]

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree with the recommendation in the first report of Session 2010-11 issued by the Procedure Committee that rather than the Government regulating themselves by means of the ministerial code, a protocol on ministerial statements should be put in place to be enforced by this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I think my hon. Friend will recall that the House subsequently considered that matter and did not pursue and endorse the suggestion.

Transport Infrastructure

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I have said to various colleagues, everyone will have an opinion if they have something in their own localities. I will await the outcome of the commission’s report, but I take what my hon. Friend has said seriously.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Let us forget Birmingham and Leeds Bradford and get back to Manchester. Given that Heathrow is already operating at full capacity and it is likely to be years before any option being considered by the Davies commission is built, may I ask my right hon. Friend what steps he is taking to encourage greater use of these regional airports—or major international airports as he calls them? May I suggest that a useful and popular first step would be to reduce airport passenger duty for new long-haul flights from regional airports, which would not cost the Treasury anything because they do not exist at the moment?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am always keen to hear about schemes that cost no money whatever. Colleagues often convince me of a scheme but, unfortunately, when I go to the Treasury the idea is usually dismissed in fairly short terms. None the less, I understand my hon. Friend’s point. The truth is that Manchester has expanded and is, without any doubt, now a major international airport. I am just sorry that no one has mentioned East Midlands airport, which is also owned by Manchester airport.

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clappison]

As my hon. Friend will know, that is the film notice, as opposed to the film order, and the various requirements relate to film notices. I hope he will take some consolation from the fact that a film notice can continue for only 24 hours, whereas a film order can continue for longer. As he has said, notice of a film notice has to be given at least 24 hours before it comes into effect. The purpose is to deal with situations in which weather may be a factor and the film producers want to take advantage of temporary weather conditions.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has set out the long history of film making in his constituency and his part of the world. Given that that has happened for so many years, will he briefly set out why these measures are now deemed necessary and how the area managed without them in the past?

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I am aware that roads have been closed in the past, but I am not sure whether the legal powers under which they were closed were, shall we say, as certain as some would have liked them to have been. I think my hon. Friend would be among the first to ask whether there was a proper legal power and to look into it. The Bill will put the legal position beyond any doubt. I hope I will be able to assist hon. Members by explaining that this Bill is analogous to existing legislation for other categories of event and activity for which roads can be closed. The Bill merely makes it clear that film making will be added to that list.

May I say, in general support of the Bill, that the film industry and the ability to attract films to use our excellent local environment are very important for the local economy? It was reported in December 2011 that Hertfordshire employs approximately 3,200 people in the film and television industry, quite a few of whom live in my constituency. Film and television productions are facilitated if film makers are able to use out-of-studio locations in the many picturesque locations in Hertsmere and Hertfordshire. As I have indicated, this Bill will put the use of those localities and local roads on a firmer legislative footing.

The provisions of the Bill will have the effect, as I have suggested, of extending, with modifications, the existing powers of the highway authority to close roads for special events. Those powers are found, as I am sure hon. Members will know, in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which was amended in the 1990s to enable the Tour de France to be hosted in England for the first time. The relevant provision of the 1984 Act allows closures to facilitate the holding of a relevant event, which is defined as

“any sporting event, social event or entertainment which is held on a road.”

It is ambiguous whether that definition includes film making.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right that the use of a closure motion and, indeed, timetabling is possible for private Members’ Bills, but it is also worth pointing out that the Procedure Committee has said in its report that it is not its intention to facilitate the passage of Bills into law, and that it should not be easy to see a private Member’s Bill become law.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that regardless of the procedures used to deal with private Members’ Bills, such a Bill is extremely unlikely to reach the statute book unless it has the express or at least tacit approval of the Government?

[Tom Brake]

I can assure my hon. Friend that there have been examples in the past—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House secured a private Member’s Bill in opposition—so there are opportunities even for Opposition Members to push private Members’ Bills through, although clearly having the support of the Government is helpful.