HC Deb 07 December 1951 vol 494 cc2734-54

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

We have just listened to a most interesting debate on education in Africa and the subject I wish to raise is on a rather similar line as it is education in road sense in this country. I suggest that the risk in the darkest parts of the African bush is nowhere as great as on the roadways of this country in broad daylight.

I know it will be the wish of all hon. Members that I should express pleasure and gratification that the Minister has attended in person to reply to the debate. I know that we should have had an excellent and authoritative reply from his Parliamentary Secretary, but I believe the presence of the Minister personally is a recognition of the importance of the matter we wish to discuss.

The subject matter of this debate would be important under any circumstances, but it has been brought into sharper relief this week by the tragic accident at Gillingham on Tuesday. In the face of this stark tragedy I believe it is our duty to ask the Minister to redouble his efforts to extend and improve road safety measures, whether it be by improving street lighting or by putting non-skid extensions on either side of the Z crossings, or whether it be by bringing in more effective pedestrian safety devices. I hope he will bear in mind that some such practical reaction as that will be the most effective way of extending our sincere condolences to the sorrowing parents of Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham.

The disaster to which I have referred is under investigation, but there are far too many individual accidents up and down this country which pass unnoticed. I am concerned that too many people are unaware of the staggering total to which this adds up at the end of each year. For example, last year there were 201,000 people killed and injured. Out of this figure, 868 were children killed. This year, up to the end of September, there were more than 160,000 road accidents.

I wish to suggest to those of us who are from time to time offered various platforms throughout the country it is essential that we should use those platforms to ask pedestrians, motorists and all road users, as individuals, to do their best to keep down these figures. And that we should go on doing this until those two human frailties, recklessness and carelessness, which I believe are the two main agents of death, are really eliminated in this country. That, I think, is an individual task which we can all carry out.

Our main purpose today is to ask the Minister if he is fully satisfied with the decisions of his Department affecting road safety. Is he satisfied that they are the right ones? Is he quite convinced that all is being done which should be done? I want to tell him that a large body of authoritative opinion in this country are far from satisfied with the decision taken by his predecessor to slash the uncontrolled pedestrian crossings by upwards of 60 per cent. I think he must agree that to cut down the number of the pedestrian crossings in the country from 30,000 to 10,000 or to 12,000 as is now suggested, is too drastic, to say the least.

It is hard to understand, in the face of the various reports we have had from his Ministry in the past as to the effectiveness of these crossings, that they should suddenly want to give them such a terrific slash as this. I would give one example which is typical of the many which have emanated from his Department. Circular 626 in 1948 from the Ministry of Transport stated: These crossing places, rightly used, are a valuable aid to safety and all road users should be reminded of this fact. Following that statement numerous Pedestrian Safety Weeks were organised up and down the country. That statement was read. Many committees were set up on the basis of that statement. And then, all of a sudden, we found that the crossings which had been eulogised in such a way were slashed by two-thirds almost overnight.

I would remind the Minister that the decision taken by his predecessor was mainly against the advice of all local police authorities; against the advice of the Association of Municipal Corporations, in addition to the many road safety committees in the country; against the wishes of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and certainly against the desire of the Pedestrians Association. They are all bodies which have given very careful thought to this problem. I suggest that in the face of such formidable opposition he would be more than justified in relaxing this far-reaching decision arrived at by his predecessor.

I would underline one or two points in support of this suggestion. The pedestrian crossing Regulations 1193 and 1192 gave no hint at all that we should have this terrific cut. They merely outlined the new zebra crossings, which were accepted. Indeed, when the Minister met the Association of Municipal Corporations they made it clear at the very beginning of the discussions that most of their members were opposed to any cut at all. And the very small minority of that group, who felt that certain cuts could be made without interfering with safety, would go no further than to advocate a reduction of 30 per cent. for a temporary period.

That organisation was left by the Minister with the impression that he would not think of cutting the number below 50 per cent., and I have reason to believe they were shocked when they learned subsequently, that without any further reference to them, a two-thirds reduction had been brought about. I know the Minister has said that in exceptional cases he would give special exemption, but the present impression throughout the country is that the divisional road engineers of the Ministry of Transport, who have to make these decisions, are very reluctant to use their discretion and are keeping rigidly to the two-thirds slash advocated by the Minister. The impression has been formed that instructions have been given to these divisional road engineers not to face up too eagerly to the special consideration which it was promised.

I ask the Minister now to give instructions that the number of Z crossings shall go up from one-third to 50 per cent. of the number that existed before the Regulations and that his divisional engineers should be asked to use their discretion much more sympathetically. This would be the least concession which would be considered satisfactory by my constituents in Peterborough. If we in Peterborough are to feel that all the road safety work carried out by an energetic chief constable and a keen and active road safety committee is to be effective we must have at least 50 per cent. Of the existing 28 uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. At the moment we are told that we are likely to have 10, and possibly 12.

Peterborough is an area similar to many others where crossings were put down only after very careful thought. There should be a big distinction between those authorities who carefully sited their crossings in the first place, and those authorities who put them down in a haphazard fashion. Everyone agrees that the zebra crossings could be made a great success. They have possibilities. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport sat over a committee on road safety in 1949 where, I think, the idea of the zebra crossings were conceived. If he has not already done so, the Minister should read the very useful pamphlet which was issued on that occasion.

Having said that we accept Z crossings as a good idea, I think, in the light of experience over the last five weeks, there are several considerations which should be borne in mind. I believe that there is now ample evidence in support of installing island refuges on all crossings where the road is more than 30 ft. wide. I think that a case is quite clearly made out for the necessity of motorists being freed from having to view both sides of a wide road, and I am quite certain that a case has also been made out for lights being placed above the Z crossings. All of us who use the road know from personal experience that, while we can see the Z crossings in daylight, it is almost impossible to see them at night, and such a system of lighting would remove that difficulty.

We should also make certain that the white strips on these crossings are kept clean, and I believe that money ought to be spent to provide non-skid surfaces on the roads on either side of these crossings. The number of rear bump accidents which have happened over the last five weeks give a clear pointer to this necessity.

My last word is on school crossings. One section of the community which is likely to suffer more than any other from road accidents will be the school children. I think that we must agree that it is not good enough to have a crossing which is only for temporary usage at certain times of the day, and I hope that now that we are reducing the number of crossings the Minister will accept this as a considerable argument to encourage the use of school wardens for guiding the children.

I should like to ask the Minister if he would read the Adjournment debate we had on 29th November, in which asked the Minister to consider extending the use of school crossing wardens, and, in particular, that we should be able to recognise them easily when on duty. They should also be provided with a uniform which is as clear to recognise as that of a police constable or that of an A.A. or R.A.C. scout. The cost of a model which I have here is only 30s., and I think we could save money by the adoption of this suggestion in place of the regulation board now in use. I believe that now is the time, following the reduction in crossings generally, that further thought ought to be given to this matter.

In the debate to which I have referred. the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave me a very sympathetic response, and I am quite able to understand his difficulties in regard to school crossing wardens owing to hazy authority over them. What we must decide is who is to be responsible—the police, the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Education. I am asking the Minister on this question to use all the energy which we all know he possesses to cut through this tangle of Departmental and inter-Departmental buck passing. I ask him to have a meeting and to make up his mind which Department is responsible for this most important service, and to put his decision into effect right away.

That, of course, is only a very brief outline of the real case behind the subject-matter of this debate, but I know that there are many other hon. Members who wish to add their views to the plea I am making. I think we can leave the matter with confidence to the new Minister of Transport in the belief that he will tackle this task with the energy and inspiration which it must demand, and, once again, I thank him very much for attending in person to listen to this debate.

1.4 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

To say that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) is no idle courtesy, because all who were present during the Adjournment debate to which he has referred will long remember the speech that he made on that occasion. Since he came to this House, the hon. Gentleman has tackled this problem of road safety with an alertness and perseverance which all of us might well seek to emulate, and, if we did, we could, perhaps, make a rather greater impact on the enormous number of deaths and accidents on the roads than we have always been successful in making during the past 20 or 25 years.

All of us are appalled at the figures of accidents, and the fact that, last year, 800 children were killed on the roads is a standing disgrace to the country as a whole. One would have thought that the enormity of the tragedy which goes on on the roads would have made us rather more careful in our treatment of this problem. Yet, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this problem is thrown backwards and forwards from one Department to another, between the Ministries of Transport and Education and the Home Office.

I sometimes wonder how appalled the public would be if they knew how many Government Departments are responsible for different aspects of child welfare in this country. If we could have an overall and over-riding committee to look after the problems of children, and, if necessary, bang the heads of Ministers together, children would be better looked after than they are at present.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Regulations which all of us approved in the last Parliament. It is true to say that, when we approved those Regulations without any division in this House, very few of us were aware of the way in which they would be carried out by the Ministry of Transport. Their effect has been that local authorities have been ordered quite arbitrarily, and there is a good deal of indignation in the Association of Municipal Corporations at the orders given to local authorities in, for example, the Ministry of Transport Circular No. 668. Instead of leaving these matters to the discretion of local authorities, the latter have virtually received instructions from the Minister on what they ought to do.

The effect has been to penalise those local authorities which, in the past, have been sensible in the provision of pedestrian crossings, and to place them in the same position as those authorities which have been prodigal in the past. It is equally true to say that many of these crossings are outside schools, and are crossings which the children use to go to school and which they have been trained to use.

I should like to quote to the House part of a letter from a parent of children attending a primary school on one of the most important roads in my constituency—the road from Manchester to Burnley, along which there is a great deal, not only of private traffic, but of heavy commercial traffic as well. This parent writes: The Ministry of Transport removes at two weeks' notice the protection which the children have previously had, without making sure that an alternative arrangement was ready to be put into operation. This, to our minds, is a bad and blind policy, and, where their shortsightedness is liable to affect the lives of children, it is criminal. That is perfectly right, but what happened when the local council asked for the retention of this crossing was that they got a very courteous letter from the divisional road engineer of the Ministry of Transport, in which he made the point which the hon. Gentleman has made about not retaining crossings specially for children where they are not otherwise in general use throughout the day. I can, of course, see the reasons in that point of view. The letter from the divisional road engineer says: In my view, therefore, the only safe alternative on heavily trafficked roads is for police or wardens to control the traffic at the times that the children enter or leave school. Again, that is perfectly right; that is the solution to the problem. But the wickedness of the situation is that the Minister of Transport will not consult the Minister of Education to see that local education authorities are primed of the necessity for the provision of wardens.

I have another letter from my own local authority, the Rawtenstall Borough Council, in which they tell me what happened when they applied for permission for the provision of wardens to look after schoolchildren. This is what they said: The Divisional Education Executive have on a number of occasions asked the Lancashire County Council to approve the necessary expenditure for school wardens, but, as this has not been forthcoming, the position is that the school children are now left without any protection at all. So we go on with this problem, throwing it back between one responsible authority and another, all of them, in turn, denying responsibility.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter will succeed in his plea to the Minister this morning. We are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being here, and I hope that, after this debate, he will initiate discussions with the Home Secretary and the Ministry of Education to see whether we can get a clear-cut policy, a clear definition of responsibility, so that we can, above all, make this matter one of national policy.

I think the hon. Member for Peterborough is right in thinking that, if we are to have wardens, we should have them on a national basis, wearing some kind of distinctive uniform in all parts of the country, and should also see that they are properly trained men and women with qualifications which command the general respect of the motoring public. That will take some time.

In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will respond to the plea made to him to allow local authorities to keep a higher proportion of the pedestrian crossings than they are at the moment allowed to keep. I believe that in the next few months the Minister of Transport will disappoint the country on quite a number of scores, but here is one opportunity for him to gain general acclaim. We wish him well if he will tackle this problem with the energy for which all us respect him.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Billericay)

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) is to be congratulated for raising this subject today. Since he has been in this House, he has done a great deal to focus attention upon this squalid problem of road safety.

I think the whole nation welcomes the experiment of the new zebra crossings. They are distinctive and they inspire confidence. But, in the last month or two, the arbitrary method by which uncontrolled crossings have been reduced has given rise to very serious misgivings in almost every constituency in the country. But nowhere is the problem more acute than in the kind of urban districts which I represent. There are four in my constituency—partly urban, partly built-up with a great mileage of roads and with, in some cases, important main roads passing through.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend on one point. He suggested that the Minister should be asked to restore at least 50 per cent. of the crossings. I take the view that every crossing must be regarded on its merits, and that some regard must be had to the total number of crossings which existed before the introduction of the new Regulations.

A struggle has been going on in my constituency between the four urban district councils and the Ministry of Transport over these crossings. For example, the Billericay Urban District Council, which is, I believe, the fourth largest in the country, and which has a population of 43,000, had only 14 crossings. They were instituted in 1949, some of them on one of the most dangerous roads in Essex, and now the council have been forced to cut them down to eight.

In the neighbouring urban district of Rayleigh there were only three crossings prior to the introduction of the new Regulations. The council wanted to retain all three, but the Ministry of Transport insisted that they cut them down to one. The council dug their toes in, and there was a great deal of local agitation. My constituents are very militant. Many of the Pilgrim Fathers came from my constituency as did the gunpowder with which Guy Fawkes proposed to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605. It was not surprising that the natives of Rayleigh threatened to organise all kinds of demonstrations if these crossings were removed.

After a long battle between the council and the Ministry it was decided to hold a pedestrian count on one crossing. Representatives from the Ministry of Transport—the divisional road transport engineer—from the police, the county surveyor and the local councils all descended on this particular crossing and it was found that 165 people used it every hour of the day. As a result, the divisional road transport engineer gave in. Honour was satisfied. No doubt he felt that he had justified his existence.

Then again, in the neighbouring urban district of Benfleet there were only seven crossings in 36 miles of road, again with an important main road passing through—possibly one of the most dangerous roads in the whole county. Five of those seven crossings were on the dangerous London—Southend road, and all had been carefully sited having regard to accidents which had previously occurred. The greatest possible care had been taken to ensure that those crossings were put in the most appropriate place, but, again, the Ministry insisted upon a reduction to one-third, while crossings established mainly for children were ruled out altogether.

Of the four crossings eliminated in the Benfleet district the police themselves want one restored. Another is the subject of a petition from over 60 mothers, which is at present reposing on the table of the right hon. Gentleman and, I hope, commanding his most urgent attention. It is most unfortunate that this policy of eliminating crossings to which school children have become accustomed should be going on unchecked. The Ministry of Transport Circular No. 1668, dated 20th June, and issued by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, says: Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings … should not … be retained for the special advantage of a school, hospital or similar institution where pedestrians cross in numbers at intermittent and specific times only. Why not? Other people have been using those crossings precisely because they think that if children use them they must be perfectly safe.

It is true that it is desirable to have wardens at such crossings, but it is not always possible to provide them, and certainly in the county of Essex the strain on police resources is very great indeed. May I make the plea to my right hon. Friend that established school crossings should not be removed unless adequate supervision can be provided? I have personally inspected all the crossings in these four urban districts. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough in saying that it is utterly wrong that local authorities who have exercised great care in the selection of crossings, and have provided the number of crossings necessary to ensure proper safety, should be penalised by this arbitrary reduction of two-thirds.

Local authorities alone can judge local needs. I remember that during the General Election a very irate local councillor, who had done a great deal to educate people locally in road safety, saying to me that not only does the man in Whitehall not know best, but that in this particular case he does not know anything at all. That may be a little unkind, for there are, no doubt, most estimable people in the Ministry of Transport; but I do make a plea for more flexibility. Local authorities, certainly in my county of Essex, are fully alive to the problem. Let the Minister rely a little more on their good sense.

Lastly, I want to refer to the new approach signs, because in my view they leave a great deal to be desired. For one thing, they are too small, and, for another, they are sited on the footway and may be obscured from the view of oncoming motorists by pedestrians, rain, mud, or by a perambulator or some other obstruction on the pavement. They are placed about 45 feet from the crossing, and the Regulations lay down that no vehicle shall stop between the approach sign and the crossing except to put down passengers or to unload goods.

Now I believe that those exceptions lead to uncertainty, which is bad, because even the slightest degree of uncertainty on the roads can lead to accidents. But my criticism does not end there. As the Regulations stand at the moment, these limitations do not apply to the further side of the crossing.

It is possible, therefore, for a vehicle to stop on the far side of the crossing to unload passengers or goods, but in so doing it may, on a day of bad visibility or at night-time, mask a pedestrian who starts to use the crossing from approaching traffic on the other side of the road. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that is a point he might investigate. There should be approach lanes on both sides of the crossings in which no vehicle may stop under any circumstances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough referred to the appalling wastage of human life on the roads. In the face of this I do not think the Minister should be afraid of experimenting. I do not think he will be afraid of experimenting, because those of us who know him know well that he possesses great imagination and drive. Certainly, he will need all those qualities in combating this dreadful problem.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

The time for this debate is all too short, and I am not going to spoil the harmony of the proceedings this morning by making any reproaches to hon. Members opposite for their indecent anxiety to rise for Christmas. I should like to join with other hon. Members in thanking the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) for his close interest in this matter and his persistent attempts to secure improvements in the protection given to pedestrians on the roads. I remember well the Adjournment debate to which he referred. I was one of many visitors to his one-man exhibition of how handsome a road warden can look in the uniform designed by the hon. Member and worn by him.

I think we all realise that these Regulations show the pedestrian to be in retreat before the modern highwayman, the mechanised Dick Turpin, who does not ask for your money but only for your life. We must recognise the reduced opportunities the pedestrian has of crossing the road in comparative safety, representing a signal retreat from the position marked out for him in the original Regulations. Unhappily the pedestrian found that the more numerous crossings became untenable. They were either not respected or there were legal difficulties in enforcing his right to cross them.

Now that the Ministry has thought of a plan to increase the respect for the crossings by reducing their number, I want to ask the Minister a question or two about the right of local authorities where they find themselves in disagreement with the divisional road engineer. As far as I can see, the Regulations in Statutory Instrument No. 1192 do not take away from the local authorities the power they previously had to define pedestrian crossings. If that is so, then all that the local authorities are working under are the instructions—if that is the term to use—given by the Ministry in Circular 668.

In my constituency the borough council of Todmorden are having a disagreement with the divisional road engineer regarding four crossings which they believe are desirable but which are in excess of the one-third the Ministry have allowed as the reduced number of crossings which should now be maintained. The divisional engineer says he is unable to agree to the retention of these disputed crossings. What is the right of a local authority to disregard the judgment of a divisional engineer and to go ahead and define these crossings for themselves?

It is important to know whether the Ministry have any statutory power over the local authorities in this respect. They certainly have in London because paragraph 3 of Statutory Instrument No. 1193 says: (1) On and after the coming into operation of these Regulations no new crossing shall be established on any road by the road authority unless the establishment of the crossing has been approved by the Minister. No such provision appears in Statutory Instrument No. 1192 which appears to govern the rest of the country.

I appeal to the Minister to say whether a local authority, finding themselves in difficulty with the engineer, will be empowered to go ahead. If the pedestrian is to be content with a reduced number of pedestrian crossings it is most important that he should exercise his rights towards those crossings to the full. I hope the Minister will encourage all pedestrians to insist on their rights in using these crossings.

Up to now perhaps there has been a little uncertainty on the part of pedestrians in making their will known. There has been some confusion perhaps in the minds of motor vehicle drivers as to what pedestrians were going to do. Experimenting for myself in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster yesterday and, if I may say so, risking the second by-election of this Parliament, I tried to make my wish to cross the marked crossings known to the drivers of sundry vehicles. They behaved as if they had been taken completely by surprise and looked at me as if they resented this intrusion of their free passage along the road.

I propose to go on doing as I did and I hope many pedestrians will do the same. An indication of one's intentions can be given in good time for vehicles to pull up to avoid either hurt or fright to those passing over the crossing. I hope the Minister will give a satisfactory reply on these points.

1.28 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip—Northwood)

I seek to intervene in this debate for only a few minutes. If the tragic number of deaths on the roads is to be restricted then pedestrians and motorists alike must realise their obligations in respect of the pedestrian crossings and respect them. I do not think that has been sufficiently the case in the past, partly because there have been too many pedestrian crossings and partly because they have been badly marked.

I wish to draw attention this morning to the type of wide uncontrolled crossing which has in fact ceased to be a pedestrian crossing at all. I am thinking of the type of crossing leading from Trafalgar Square to Northumberland Avenue. That is a very wide section of the road and there is a continual stream of pedestrians going across. If motorists respected it strictly in accordance with the Regulations there would be few moments of the day when a motor car could pass over that crossing at all.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

It has been removed.

Mr. Crowder

Perhaps that has been the result of action taken by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East.

Mr. Callaghan

I happen to be one of the unfortunate pedestrians who have to cross there every day and I noticed its disappearance.

Mr. Crowder

I am very glad it has disappeared. There have been far too many of these crossings in the past. I do not think many pedestrians are really quite certain of their rights on crossings. Many of them think that if they are standing at a crossing and they see a car approaching, the moment the car driver sees them on the side pathway or kerb he has to stop immediately. We all know that is not the case, but not every pedestrian knows it. In nearly every case in the courts involving an accident on a crossing that is the story told by the pedestrian. We find he has embarrassed the motorist by charging out at the last moment, and he bears 50 to 60 per cent. of the blame for the accident.

I welcome the fact that we are to have fewer of these crossings, but I do ask that they should be properly lighted and marked. Indeed I would suggest that a light should be put inside the beacon. Anything which can be done to make these crossings plainer to motorists and to make clearer the duties of motorists and pedestrians alike will have my strongest support.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

When the Minister introduced these Regulations we were given an opportunity to consider them. As has been said, there was no vote taken on that night, but none of us appreciated at that time the consequences of the Regulations and the deleterious effect they were going to have on almost every local authority in the country. The Minister said that in the new policy 10,000 was not an arbitrary limit, and he went on to say that a strong and justifiable case in future must be made out for additional crossings.

There are two or three matters, apart from the local considerations, which we ought to consider. This matter cannot be dealt with in a wholesale manner from some centre in Whitehall on a national basis, such as we have seen on this occasion, because obviously different areas have vastly dissimilar geographical factors to consider. In my own constituency of Stoke-on-Trent we have a long stream of towns, and the layout of the city is such that it is built along six or seven miles of main road. In consequence, we have a stream of traffic running right down the centre of the city all the time. Of course, the layout of some other places may be different.

In fact, when pedestrian crossings were introduced it was thought necessary to use 268 of them. When the Regulations were introduced the Minister said that we must have 74. Much argument went on, and finally, I think it was agreed that we might step up the number to 101, but the City Council did so very reluctantly. Like other local authorities, they placed on record their regret, and they strongly protested against the instruction to remove two-thirds of the pedestrian crossings in the city, particularly as regards those in the vicinity of the schools. With respect to the problem of the children it has been difficult to maintain conditions of safety within our city where many schools abut on to a very densely crowded main road of traffic.

I hope that in matters of this kind before definite instructions are given by the Minister or by any Department, the position will be more thoroughly canvassed in the future. Obviously the people on the spot, and particularly the police, know the local conditions best. We are making our representations from Stoke-on-Trent today on the basis that our case is supported by the chief constable and, after close and careful examination, by the watch committee. We are sensible people in these matters, I think, and we would not waste our time unless there were great urgency and feeling throughout the country. As I asked the Minister the other day, would it not be possible to operate a standstill order on what seems to be a somewhat foolish instruction, so that a lot of work will not have to be done in a few weeks time when the Minister comes round to our point of view, as I think he will?

1.35 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay)

I join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) for giving us a chance to have this discussion today. I would add my tribute to the work which I know the hon. Member for Peterborough has done for many years past on behalf of safety on the roads.

As my hon. Friend mentioned in opening, we are discussing this subject under the shadow of the tragic accident at Gillingham, and I feel certain that I can say that the, thoughts of all of us at this moment are with all those who are going through such suffering and sorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]

I wanted to leave the maximum amount of time for hon. Members to put their points and I have left myself just a little short of time if we are to keep to our timetable, but I think it will be easiest if I give a general survey of the main points as I see them, because I think I shall be taking up practically every point made by various hon. Members. I hope that if anyone feels I have missed out something in which he is particularly interested he will ask me to deal with it before I conclude.

May I say that in the first place this whole question of safety on the roads is one which I myself and all those with related responsibilities are treating as of the first urgency, and I can assure the House that we shall continue to search for means to cut down those terrible figures, which more than one hon. Member has mentioned, of deaths and injury on the roads. We have to keep our discussion this afternoon to pedestrian crossings, and I should like to make it clear that while of course I inherited this new policy, broadly speaking I believe that the main principles are sound. These principles might be defined as simpler regulations than used to exist with the old system, better markings of crossings and reduction in numbers.

The new policy, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) knows very well, had its origin in the Report by the Committee on Road Safety in 1949, which recommended, among other things: The majority of crossings over side roads at uncontrolled junctions should be abolished. The system of crossing places should be reviewed in the light of past experience and those which serve little purpose removed. I understand—I have been looking up the back records—that these proposals were first discussed in this House last winter. Subsequently early this year there were talks with representative associations of local authorities and with particular classes of road users.

I am advised that, on the whole, there was general agreement on the broad lines of the scheme, although in a matter like this one could never expect anything like unanimity. But I do know equally well that some bodies, particularly the Association of Municipal Corporations, expressed strong views against too drastic a reduction in numbers. This feature, the reduction in numbers, was regarded as an indispensable part of the whole scheme, and on the principle that there must be a positive target if we are to get anywhere, the local authorities were asked last June to cut down the number of uncontrolled crossings to one-third.

It has already been made clear in this debate, although it was not generally realised beforehand, that it is not the Regulations which are under criticism in this respect. It is the letter which went out to local authorities. The argument has been put forward very cogently that local authorities, who in the past have taken a very careful view of the number of crossings required under the old system, have been particularly prejudiced by this new scheme. I think that in fairness I should quote a little from Circular 668 which has been referred to already, and which was the letter that went out asking for the reduction by two-thirds. Paragraph 4 starts like this: The Minister now requests that each local authority will review the uncontrolled pedestrian crossings in its area and select not more than one-third of these crossings which it regards as being the most important and proceed to stripe these … and so on. The beginning of the next paragraph says: The Minister hopes that in most instances one-third of the existing crossings will be sufficient, and that in some areas less than one-third should suffice. Later on it says: The Minister realises, however, that in certain local authority areas, where some reduction in crossings has taken place in recent years or where conditions are exceptional, crossings in excess of one-third may be necessary. In such cases he requests the local authority concerned to discuss this with his Divisional Road Engineer, who has been authorised by the Minister to consider such applications for special consideration. I thought it wise to give the precise wording of that circular because it is against the background of the circular that I am receiving such a large volume of protests.

The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) asked about the legal position between the Ministry and the local authority. The position is that local authorities have the right under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to initiate schemes of crossings. Under Section 18 of the same Act, however, the Minister has the duty to approve and the right to vary any schemes, so what appears to be given in one hand is firmly taken away in the other. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, clearly, that the Ministry has the final decision.

I assure the House, however, that I am again drawing to the attention of my divisional road engineers the need to consider with the greatest care those cases which are put up to them for special consideration; but, equally, they must bear in mind the prime purpose of the scheme, which is to secure that road crossings command real respect, and that means a drastic reduction in the original numbers. I think I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough that to come to any arbitrary decision such as that which he suggested—50 per cent.—would not command general agreement and would probably not achieve the required purpose.

Mr. H. Nicholls

I suggested making 50 per cent. the datum line and going up or down from that, rather than making one-third the datum line.

Mr. Maclay

I noted the point carefully, but I think my hon. Friend realises that even his suggestion would be highly controversial among other people. The decision to come down to one-third was to reach a point at which we could start without further discussion. The idea was to get one-third of the crossings marked as quickly as possible. Thereafter, any increase over that figure should be a matter of the most careful individual examination, and I cannot help feeling that that is right. It can be argued, and is being argued, whether one-third is the right figure, but there had to be a figure, and now we are at a point where we have to consider very carefully each individual application over and above that figure. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) gave an example of the need in his constituency, or part of it, and of activities there.

May I turn to the question of school crossings? Here again, I have received a remarkable number of letters and protests about this. The difficulty is, of course, that if these crossings are little used at other parts of the day—except four times a day by the school children—then ultimately, instead of being a safety measure they are a positive danger. Hon. Members have recognised this, and indeed there is a good deal of evidence to show that it is so.

While children are coming out of school in large numbers the motorist sees them coming, but the danger is when the children approach the crossing individually. I have seen it happening myself. The minute the school doors open the first two or three children rush out impetuously, eager to get home; or, on the other hand, and at the other end of the scale, those who have been kept late for some reason or other come out perhaps individually. There is another danger about uncontrolled school crossings. Children who have been trained to use them during school hours have the same confidence in them at other hours of the day. Experience has shown that unless these crossings are regularly used by pedestrians all day, motorists tend to disregard them.

I feel certain that where children have to cross busy roads on their way to and from school, and where it is impossible to provide regular police protection, the idea of an adult patrol—I agree that the patrol should be suitably dressed, and uniformly dressed throughout the country if that can be achieved—is the only satisfactory solution to the problem. I know about the difficulties which local authorities meet in providing these patrols and I propose to examine the problem with my appropriate Ministerial colleagues—and I use the word "appropriate" deliberately.

On the question of siting crossings, I think there is more or less general agreement that in daylight the crossings are effective and are receiving a much greater degree of respect than was given to the old crossings. I was a little worried by something the hon. Member for Sowerby said when he urged pedestrians to assert their rights. Clearly they have rights, but I would add that I feel it is better to be alive than to be dead right. I hope that in any remarks which the hon. Member makes in the country he will bear that in mind.

I ask that it should be borne in mind, too, that a pedestrian who arrives at a crossing and, without regard for the traffic moving up and down the road, just assumes his right and steps straight on to the road, is very unwise. He may be safe, but some vehicle has to brake very hard, causing a pile-up behind him. There have been several cases of that already. It is not a question of the front car skidding but of trouble for the drivers behind, who could not see the pedestrian and were not able to stop in time. I note the suggestion of the hon. Member for Peterborough that when we are talking about this subject in the country we should stress all these points. As I have said, the only real solution is proper cooperation between driver and pedestrian.

When we turn to the zebra crossings at night there is a different picture, and I must confess it is a very worrying one. The whole problem of making these crossings more conspicuous at night is being intensively studied by the Road Research Laboratory and by my Department, but I am very concerned about the immediate problem here and I urge pedestrians, above all on wet, dark nights, for the sake of their own safety and in fairness to drivers, to take the greatest care in using these crossings. That is a piece of advice which I give with the utmost feeling of responsibility.

Mr. Callaghan

When we originally unearthed this idea from the Road Research Laboratory it was appreciated that there would be grave danger at night. I hope the Minister will not listen too closely to the suggestion that he should light the beacons. Superficially that is attractive, but there are so many lights on either side of the road that it is apt to be confusing to the driver. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will direct the efforts of the Road Research Laboratory along the lines of overhead illumination of crossings so that a driver can see them when he is approaching them.

Mr. Maclay

I agree that the matter needs careful examination. All possible solutions must be considered very carefully indeed, and I should not like to commit myself on any solution at the moment.

Finally, this new system has been in operation for only five weeks and we cannot yet obtain reliable figures of what the results have been. It must take a little time to get these figures. I assure the House that when we get them they will be studied very carefully. I propose, after a little more time has elapsed, to consult again the appropriate representative bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and others who were consulted before, so as to see what views they have developed. It is just a little early to do it, but we shall, as soon as it is reasonable. It is too early to draw reliable conclusions as to success or failure, but I would emphasise that both I and my Department are really concerned about the new questions and problems which are emerging day by day, and we are working hard to deal with them as they arise.