Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce
legislation to prevent pavement parking in England and over what
timescale.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Transport received over 15,000
responses to its consultation on this matter. The Government want
to take the right step for communities and ensure that local
authorities have the appropriate and effective tools at their
disposal. We are working through the options and the
opportunities for delivering them and, as soon as those matters
are certain, we will publish our formal response and announce the
way forward.
(Con)
My Lords, cars on the pavement force pedestrians into the
carriageway. That means blind people, wheelchair users and
parents with pushchairs—in fact, all pedestrians—are taken off
the pavement and put on a very different path: into that of
oncoming traffic. In London, there has been a ban on pavement
parking for years. If it is good enough for the capital, why not
the rest of the country?
(Con)
My noble friend makes an important point, and I cannot help but
agree with him. Pavement parking is a widespread problem and a
complex issue. We must ensure that whatever approach is taken
works for all road users in the community. We know that our
streets belong to us all and understand that parking on the
pavements damages them and exposes pedestrians to risk. We have
empathy for those members of our society for whom pavement
parking poses particular difficulties—those who have sight and
mobility impairments, wheelchair users and those with prams and
buggies—but we must get this consultation right.
(Lab)
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his Question. There is
a major challenge; he and I are fortunate enough to have a degree
of assistance in navigating cars and motorcycles on pavements,
but others do not. There is an additional hazard as well, which
is the new fashion of using electric bikes on pavements. Those
are a real danger to all the same cohorts that the noble Lord
spelled out. Is it not time to do this now? It would not cost
much and might get the Government some popularity.
(Con)
Again, the noble Lord makes a valid point, which I cannot
disagree with. E-scooters are allowed on public roads only as
part of the e-scooter rental trials, and private e-scooters can
be used only on private land. The use of any e-scooters on the
pavement is illegal under current legislation and the Government
have no current plans to change this. But at the end of the day,
these things have to be enforced and it is a matter, particularly
in London, for the Metropolitan Police. It is also for councils
to look at and I cannot help but agree with the noble Lord.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister looked surprised at the idea of government
popularity. Can I encourage him to seize the day, because this is
not just about people being forced into the road? It is also
about uneven pavements that are left behind after lots of
vehicles have parked on them. That is a danger to everyone who
walks along the pavement. Does the Minister agree that it should
be part of the rights of pedestrians in the 21st century to be
able to walk safely down the pavement, and that since the
Government’s consultation took place in November 2020, it is high
time they got on and did something?
(Con)
As I pointed out in my first Answer, the department received over
15,000 responses to its consultation, covering tens of thousands
of open comments. Every one of these has to be considered fully,
giving due regard to the wide range of opinions expressed.
Pavement parking is an extremely complex issue. All the options
which are recommendations of the Transport Select Committee have
supporters and detractors, and significant challenges in their
deliverability and effectiveness. Yes, it is time and I am
hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we will come out with
a report on this.
(Lab)
My Lords, all of us have enormous sympathy with the points the
noble Lords, Lord Holmes and , have made. Can the Minister
just disclose a little more about the options the Government are
considering for better enforcement of the law? Will he tell us
what they are, so that we might contribute better to this
debate?
(Con)
I cannot disclose them at the moment, but as I said, I am very
hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we will be able to
come forward with suggestions.
(LD)
My Lords, one of the reasons for parking on pavements is that
cars have got wider. Do the Government have any plans to
discriminate between 4x4s—which are wide, long and heavy, and
thus also damage pavements—and smaller cars, and encourage the
use of the latter in urban areas?
(Con)
I understand the point the noble Lord makes, but we have no plans
to discriminate against 4x4s or wider vehicles at the moment.
(Con)
My Lords, I remind my noble friend that the government
consultation on banning parking on pavements across England ended
three years ago. Last month, local authorities, supported by the
LGA, again called upon the Government to extend the powers
currently held in London to the rest of England, in order to
prevent parking on pavements. Does my noble friend accept that,
if all councils across England had the same powers as London,
that would enable the Government to meet their active travel
plans much quicker?
(Con)
To a certain extent, I accept that. As I have said, the
department has received over 15,000 responses, and it takes time.
Yes, three years is a long time, and I am very conscious of
that.
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
In fairness, I have only just joined the department. I assure
noble Lords that I am taking this very seriously and will do all
I can to get a response out as soon as possible.
(CB)
My Lords, in London I jump for my life from bicycles on the
pavement. Can the Minister add bicycles to the list when he is
looking at enforcement?
(Con)
I, too, jump out of the way of bicycles. I take the noble and
learned Baroness’s point; it is a serious issue, and enforcement
should be more rigorous.
(Lab)
My Lords, we are told in so many areas that we are awaiting the
results of consultations and that we do not have the resources to
undertake them more speedily. Are the Government exploring the
possibility of using AI to do a quick analysis of many of these
responses and get the results faster?
(Con)
I am not sure it is a question of resources; it is a question of
analysing the 15,000 responses to the consultation. As for AI, I
am afraid I am not an expert in that matter.
(Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend has a chance to look at the Bill in
my name on Road Traffic Act offences involving e-bikes,
e-scooters and pedal bikes, which has received its First Reading?
In particular, will he look at the provision whereby there should
be a review of illegally operated scooters to prevent further
accidents and casualties?
(Con)
I have not yet had the opportunity to look at my noble friend’s
proposed legislation, but as soon as I leave here I will go
straight back to the department and do so.
(Lab)
My Lords, is it not about time that the Government grasped the
nettle and said that roads are for things with big wheels, such
as cars, bikes and scooters, and that pavements are for people
who are trying to walk? It does not take three years to make a
decision like that.
(Con)
I think I have covered the point the noble Lord raises. I agree
that three years is a long time but, in fairness, it takes time
to analyse all of this. I undertake to move as fast as I possibly
can on this issue.
(Lab)
My Lords, it has been a lot longer than three years. I raised
this question at least five years ago with the Minister’s
predecessor, and I got a completely anodyne answer. It reflects
badly on the Government when a simple situation is called complex
that really is not complex at all.
(Con)
I cannot answer for my predecessor. All I can say is that I am
very aware of the issue and undertake to move as quickly as I
can.
