Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Simon Hoare and Edward Leigh

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

Let me say to my hon. Friend that there is no reason for use of the park to be disrupted. I am afraid that he slightly undermined his argument, because he referred to the memorial at Hyde Park having to be secured. We have had in the past to secure the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, and to safeguard the security of the Cenotaph. There were no learning centres attached to them—they stand merely as memorials. My hon. Friend said that he thought the memorial would not come under attack—for want of a better phrase—or require security measures, and that the risk was only because the learning centre was attached to it. I do not agree.

I do not have a crystal ball, but the whole security strategy will be tried and tested for every single scenario, in the same way as it is in any plan for something with public use; of course it will be, and that is right. It would respond to any scenario thrown up. I would love to be able to give a guarantee that unfettered access will be given to the park 24/7, 365 days a year, but if, in the middle of some heavy protest or something, it is the advice of the police that it be closed in the same way as they might close a road, a shop or a facility, I suggest that it would be folly to ignore that advice.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Where we are sitting is an armed fortress—we cannot go anywhere without seeing policemen with sub-machine guns. This park has always been completely open. There is absolutely no security. Every gate is completely open; there are no security guards and no wardens. On behalf of the local community, I ask the Government to assure the public that this park will remain completely open as it always has done, and that they will be able to wander in and out of this green space.

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend raises a valid point. That is absolutely at the kernel of the plans on which this vision rests. It is, of course, a planning matter, and I am not the Minister responsible for the planning process. It is a planning matter to be looked at. I think I have said all I can say on that.

I would like to correct one or two things. There was a review of alternative sites, and the comparisons were published. The Imperial War Museum was included in that analysis process. The square footage of the development represents just 7.58% of the overall surface area of the park; the park is 18,848 square metres, while the development is 1,492 square metres, which includes the memorial. Issues relating to air quality, traffic management, changes in policy and water table, among others, are in the purview of the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley).

It is worthwhile quoting, if I may, an extract from the inspector’s report. As we know from cases in our own constituencies, the inspectorate is independent of Government. The inspector said that

“the development of the UKHMLC proposals since the publication of the HMC’s report”

has been

“very thorough. This has involved site selection, a public architectural competition, and after initial selection, a very detailed preparation of the proposals and their presentation,”

with formal public consideration by Westminster City Council and

“ultimately the more detailed evidence presented before the Inquiry.”

I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) that to describe the process as flimsy, or say that Government and others seek to railroad a proposal through within five or 10 minutes of the idea being in somebody’s mind, stretches the definition—

Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill

Debate between Simon Hoare and Edward Leigh

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right. A lot of evidence has been presented to me from people around the country—not just my constituency—who have opened their front door and, rather expecting Jeremy Beadle to jump out, found the side of a white van parked so close to their front door that they have barely been able to get on to their front step.

My hon. Friend leads me to the point made by the Treasury Bench—I will come on to the Treasury Bench in a moment or two—that there are already rules and regulations to cover this arena of public life. However, they are desperately confusing. For example, it is an offence to park on a pavement, but according to local councils that is a matter for the police to enforce. It is a criminal offence, not a civil offence. The guidance in the Act that makes it a criminal offence refers, however, to wilful negligence. Now, it is quite hard, even for learned counsel such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), always to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that parking has been wilful or negligent.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, but can he explain how it will work in practice? Clause 1 states that a person who parks on a pavement or a footway in an urban environment is guilty of a civil offence, but what can they do if they live on a very narrow road with no off-street parking? If they do not park partly on the pavement or footway, they are obstructing the road. I am sure my hon. Friend can deal with this point, but it is a serious one that needs addressing.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill was introduced by a former hon. Member for Cheltenham in an earlier Parliament, but it was not debated. We have taken it on and amended it. This will not be a blanket ban for pavement parking. In medieval or older town and city centres with Victorian terraces and the like, popular ownership of the motorcar was never envisaged. To make the carriageways wide enough for emergency vehicles, bin lorries and other large vehicles, it is important to ensure a balance is struck between allowing the free movement of vehicles and securing the free movement of pedestrians.

The major difference in the Bill is that clause 3 sets aside specific provision for the Secretary of State for Transport to provide regulations and guidance to local authorities about who to consult—who are statutory consultees—and how to consult before it is introduced. It is not a blanket ban and nor is it an automatic obligation for local authorities to make use of the purposes set out. It will be up to the local authority, working in concert with local councillors, communities, freight transport associations, road haulage associations and the emergency services, to decide precisely where it is either appropriate or inappropriate to permit or to prohibit the parking of motorcars on pavements. This is not the dead hand of the state. This is not a licence for pettifogging officialdom, and nor is it a cash cow for local authorities to try to get in a bit of extra revenue. It will be proportionate and it will be sensible.

One thing I did not know—I am pretty certain that hon. Members know this, but it was a gap in my knowledge—is that organisations such as the RNIB and Guide Dogs will offer a service to people in all our communities to devise a safe and secure route to the shops, to work, to church, to school or to wherever. If, post consultation, and on the presumption that a local authority has decided to avail itself of the powers in the Bill, the trigger is that it would mark out in some way—through signage, line painting or whatever—where pavement parking is permitted, de facto, and anything not marked would not be allowed. It would allow the good folk at the RNIB, Guide Dogs and other charities to devise routes to give people certainty that when walking from A to B they will not meet a parked car. I hope that addresses my hon. Friend’s important point.