HC Deb 18 April 1935 vol 300 cc2057-64

1.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I asked the Minister of Transport a question to-day with regard to road restriction signs, and asked him whether he would do me the honour of remaining in order that I might raise this question at a later hour, but I can quite understand that the Minister is a very busy man. He has to try to demonstrate how not to be run over at crossings, and perhaps appear before the cinematograph handing money over from the Road Fund to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I can understand, therefore, that he cannot be here. But I must thank my hon. and gallant Friend who has just taken up the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for remaining, and I think the House will be delighted that I shall be the instrument of getting him on to his legs to make his first speech from that Box.

I want to raise the question of the administration of the recent Act regulating motoring. I have never disguised my feelings about that piece of legislation. I have always thought it was one of the most fatuous Measures ever passed by this House, though other people disagree with that view, and now that the casualties—not deaths, but injuries—have gone up rather than gone down I would have liked to raise the question of its repeal, but that would not be allowed in this particular Debate. What I wish to draw attention to is the fact that the Act is not being administered fairly. The position as to the speed limit is this. Outside the actual urban areas, at the approach to what are called built-up areas, which are defined, restricting signs have been erected to show that the motorist is limited to a speed of 30 miles an hour in those areas, but as the motorist comes out of those particular areas there are no de-restricting signs to indicate that he has left the 30-mile-an-hour area.

In Committee upstairs the Minister gave us a definite pledge that when there was a restricting sign there should also be a de-restricting sign. Only last week 1 motored some 250 miles in Kent, and except upon the actual main roads I never saw a de-restricting sign. The de-restricting signs are of little value on the great by-passes, because you know from definite statements which have been issued that they have been scheduled as de-restricted areas; but though on those by-passes you see de-restricting signs on every lamp post, yet, on the other hand, as you go out of a village you see nothing at all. So you proceed, thinking you are probably offending against the law if you exceed 30 miles an hour, until suddenly you come to another restricting sign, in which case you realise that you have been passing through a de-restricted area and have wasted a good 10 minutes of your time. That is a very tiresome, and almost offensive thing. Owing to the lack of de-restriction signs, when you pass a restriction sign facing the wrong way as you go along you take it for granted that you are passing into a de-restricted area. It does sometimes occur, however, that local authorities like to remind motorists a second time that they are in a restricted area. Therefore, you probably see a 30-miles-an-hour sign against you after you have accelerated under the impression that you were in a de-restricted area, and you are caught.

I ask the hon. Gentleman, first of all, that he will give an undertaking that where there is a restriction sign there must be a de-restriction sign, and where local authorities have erected a second restriction sign in the same area it should be put up on both sides of the road. I know he will gay he has no power over local authorities. I dare say there is a lot to be said on either side as to whether you should have an omnipotent Whitehall or whether the local authorities should decide how to act. We pass an Act here of which I disapproved, but as a general member of the public I should like to see it properly worked now that it is passed. The whole structure of the Bill is being destroyed by lack of cooperation by the local authorities. I ask my hon. Friend to give us an assurance that he will do all in his power to see that the motorists have a fair deal in this matter, and that local authorities should do what they are asked to do.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. GROVES

I have not quite appreciated all the questions which have been put in this House on this subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in the preface to his remarks was a little unkind. The 30-miles-an-hour limit has not operated yet for a month, and to describe the regulations as fatuous is, to say the least, unkind.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I said the Act was fatuous.

Mr. GROVES

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mean to refer to the number of casualties increasing in that way, because it is not quite in keeping with his general demeanour in this House. If the application of the regulations has resulted in fewer deaths and a decrease—although I will not say a corresponding decrease—in the number of injuries, that is, in itself, a good beginning. But I want as a member and a chairman of a highway authority to endorse what the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey said in regard to these signs. Reference has been made to the omnipotent power of Whitehall, and I, as a member of a highway authority, am of opinion that the final word rests with the Minister of Transport. I am not in favour of that. I must say that, although we have no cause for complaint as to the ultimate settlement between the Minister's advisers and our own engineering department, I have always pleaded that the highway authorities certainly know more about their local requirements with regard to speed in certain areas than people sent from Whitehall.

I represent West Ham, as my hon. Friend knows, and a sub-committee of the highways committee associated itself with his advisers. What rather disappointed us, and in fact astonished us, was that although we have been there for many years and know the requirements of every street in the area, the only acquaintance with the neighbourhood which the Ministry officials enjoyed was by maps. Yet the final decision as to where pedestrian crossings should be placed, and all things connected with safety, rested with them at Whitehall. I raised the matter with the Minister of Transport. I quite appreciate that neither the Minister nor his assistant can alter the Act for the moment, but as the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey has commented, it is not always the Statute which is at fault, but the manner in which the words are applied.

Now that the Minister is here, I hope he will not think I am standing here to make complaint. I am very pleased at the way in which the thing has been applied, but I am very anxious that the local representatives shall have the final word, and that those who know the local requirements should be able to decide in the end where the safety crossings or the speed limit signs should be placed. My own view, as a local administrator, keenly interested in the saving of lives, is that once having brought the public, and especially the motoring public, to understand that in all made-up areas the 30-miles-per-hour limit is to be applied, you have decided the main question. I have never seen the necessity for the placing of the 30-mile signs. I do appreciate, however, that when motorists are coming out of certain restricted streets or roads into another area, they should be informed by sign that they are not in a made-up area. I approach this problem, and I am sure the Minister does, with a full belief that the general body of motorists desire to abide by the law of the land, and apply the regulations with general good will. I suggest to the Minister that he should eliminate the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit signs, but indicate to the motoring public whree his 30-miles-an-hour limit does not apply.

I have been interested in the remarks of some of my motoring friends. We all have our various experiences. I have been driving for many years, and have never had an accident, and never had my licence endorsed. I approach the problem with the full belief that the great number of motorists desire to do what is right. But there is to-day, certainly a good deal of misapprehension. I put a question the other day about the arterial road leading to Southend, which is the one that I use a great deal. I can see no sense in the derestricting sign on the arterial road itself. It is obvious to all people where there are houses and street lights that it is a restricted area. Where it is obvious that the speed limit might apply it is understood that it already does apply, but where we come out into roads which are open to all, and where the limit itself does not obviously become an obligation, the duty of the Minister, I suggest, is to make it clear that those are the spots where the limit does not apply. It has had only a very short time for the experimental stage, and no word of condemnation should be used of it in this House just before we go away on holiday. Those of us who have watched the work of the Minister would say to him, More power to you. Do what you have done right through; apply it with moderation, and you will have our full backing if you do what is sweetly reasonable, as you have done in the past, for the public safety.

2.6 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson)

I would, first of all, thank the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) for his kind references to myself, and I apologise to the House for not being able to make a very full statement with statistics on the various points which have been raised. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, the matter has been raised at very short notice. I do not think any Minister could complain of the tone of the speeches. The Ministry, while not shirking criticism, have hoped, ever since the Act was passed, to have the co-operation and good will of everybody in what is admittedly an experiment.

My hon. and gallant Friend asked two specific questions. The first was as to the placing of a derestriction sign on the other side of the road to a restriction or 30-mile-an-hour sign. I think he had a definite answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport this morning. As only one sentence in that reply is relevant, I will read it: There should be a de-restriction sign on the opposite side of the road wherever a restriction sign is erected. As the Minister said, in answer to a question some days ago, we are seeing whether we can put a large de-restriction sign on the back of the present 30-milean-hour notice. In that way you would have at the end of the 30-mile-an-hour limit two notices, one on each side of the road, which ought to catch the eye of any motorist going at 30 miles an hour. The other point raised by the hon. and gallant Member is a comparatively new one. It is, supposing there to be a 30-mile-an-hour notice in the middle, of a restricted area, cannot notices be put on each side of the road? I would not like to give a definite answer on that point at the present moment, but it is one which should be looked into. In the answer which he received this morning, my hon. and gallant. Friend was told by the Minister that restriction signs should not normally be necessary within a restricted area. It may be that such signs are erected, and if they are, it may be better to have two of them.

As regards the rate at which the de-restriction signs are being put up, I quite agree that there are places, as both hon. Members have said, where those signs are not yet erected. It is as well to remember the dates in this matter. Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, directs that these signs should be put up. The Bill became an Act in July, 1934, and notice was given on 14th January of this year as to the actual date when the speed, limit would, be imposed. The speed limit was imposed on 18th March. In the notice given on 14th January, permission was given for the use of temporary signs. Having had information in July last year that the speed limit was to come, and being definitely warned on 14th January and given permission to use temporary signs, local authorities have not a great deal of excuse for not having those signs up at the present moment. There has been most wonderful smooth running since the speed limit first came in. Local authorities, on the whole, have carried out their task amazingly well, considering the magnitude of the scheme involved. As everybody knows, there are good local authorities, and some, shall I say, not so good, and it is the duty of the Minister to jog those who are not so good.

I want to make this point: As has been repeatedly said in answer to questions, if any hon. Member knows of a particular place which he would like the Minister to investigate where signs have been wrongly placed, I hope that he will let us know, and there shall be an immediate investigation. It is so much easier to deal with specific cases than with a general complaint without details. I do not think there is much more to be said on the matter. The Minister has continually said that the whole scheme is admittedly an experiment. In carrying out that experiment we want, if possible, to carry everyone with us, pedestrians, motorists, highway authorities, local authorities and everybody who is concerned. If it is to be a success, as I believe it will be, the scheme must be carried out with commonsense. I maintain that it is the duty of the Ministry to see that that commonsense is exer- cised. The Bill was originally brought in because of the rising toll of accidents. We wish to prevent those accidents and to bring down the horrible total of deaths. I hope the House will give us all the assistance in its power to carry out this very laudable ambition.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Two o' Clock, until Monday, 29th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.