HC Deb 30 May 1956 vol 553 cc375-96

Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1934 (which specifies the maximum permitted speeds of goods vehicles) shall be read and have effect as if in subhead (d) of sub-paragraph (1) thereof (which relates to heavy motor cars) in place of the maximum speed of twenty miles per hour there were substituted the maximum speed of thirty miles per hour.—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The text of this Clause is identical to that which I moved in the Standing Committee and which, I think, found majority support in the Committee. It was left in a state of suspended animation because of certain assurances which the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, was able to give the Committee.

In order to shorten my speech on this occasion—and I have no desire at all to repeat any of the lengthy arguments which were adduced in Committee—might I quote two short passages from my right hon. Friend's speech on 15th December last. He said: It has been in the hope of securing the first objective"— that is the removal of this speed limit— that, as a good many Members of the Committee know, discussions have been taking place in the industry as to what are the possibilities. I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster into the discussion as to whom represents whom on the employers or employees side in the industry. It is one of the problems of the industry that this structure, both on the employers or employees side, is a good deal more complicated than that of other industries, and that in itself, may well be a contributing factor to making this a more difficult situation in which to reach agreement. Later in the same speech the Minister endorsed the principle of the desirability of removing the 20 m.p.h. speed limit on heavy goods vehicles—that is, vehicles which have an unladen weight in excess of three tons. The Minister then said—and I think these words are very important: As frankly and clearly as I can. I have indicated the view of the Government on this matter, that, on the merits, there is very little that need be said against the proposal of the change. but the time of any such change is a matter which still requires consideration in the light of the discussions which have taken place, and I do not think it would be the wish of any Member of the Committee, in these circumstances. to take a step as we could do today, which might make it more difficult to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th December, 1955; c. 858 and 860.] In the light of what the Minister said on that occasion, my hon. Friends and I withdrew the proposed new Clause in the Standing Committee. We wished the negotiations between the interested bodies—the Road Haulage Association, representing certain of the heavy goods vehicle owners on the one hand, the Transport and General Workers' Union representing the majority of the drivers on the other hand, and also the watching brief held by British Road Services—to take their normal course in the hope that a settlement could be reached on what was the principal outstanding impediment—namely, the revision of drivers' schedules and revised scales of remuneration for the drivers. They were very valid objectives to which I, for my part, fully subscribed.

The fact is that another six months have elapsed. added to a delay of what previously had been more than twenty years while these discussions in one form or another had been going on. In fact, at regular intervals since 1934 this question has been raised in the House and elsewhere, and particularly of course in the lifetime of the second post-war Labour Government, when the then Minister of Transport responded nearly as favourably as did my right hon. Friend in the Standing Committee on 15th December to a Motion that was signed by more than 250 Members of this House urging upon the Minister, on a number of very valid grounds, the desirability of raising the speed limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h.

As a footnote, I might add that there are 110,000 vehicles in this country tied to the speed limit of 20 m.p.h., and of 110,000 vehicles 64,000 of them—this is an important figure—are C licence vehicles, owned for the overwhelming part by private firms. The remaining 46,000 vehicles are of A and B licences, and included in that 46,000 is the entire fleet of vehicles owned by British Road Services which today we estimate at about 12,000 vehicles, which are tied to a limit of 20 m.p.h.

9.45 p.m.

I wish very briefly to recapitulate the urgent reasons which make it desirable to revise this speed limit upwards to 30 m.p.h. The first is, obviously, on grounds of much lower operating costs. If all these vehicles can run at the higher speed limit, then, without placing any undue burden upon any interested party, it should lead to greater productivity. The second is on the ground of road safety. There have been arguments advanced that road safety would further be prejudiced if these heavy vehicles were allowed to run at the higher rate. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary.

In 1954, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport used these words, which I think are conclusive: Some recent observations by the Laboratory indicated that on roads in areas not built up about 95 per cent. of heavy goods vehicles exceed 20 miles an hour, and some 65 to 70 per cent. exceed 25 miles an hour."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 68.] Furthermore, as I said' in Committee, the final Report of the Committee on Road Safety in 1947 used these words, that having regard to improvements in braking equipment, we see no objection on grounds of road safety to an increase of the speed limit of 20 m.p.h. at present applicable to heavy goods vehicles. I suggest that a combination of those two considerations—the fact that 95 per cent. of these vehicles are already exceeding the limit and working at speeds up to 30 m.p.h., and the assurance of the Road Safety Committee that braking power and other mechanical factors are now adequate to deal with vehicles operating at the higher rate—should dispose of any suggestion that road safety would be prejudiced by increasing the speed limit of these 110,000 vehicles.

It is also, I think, incontrovertible that, particularly on long runs, on which most of these heavy vehicles operate, driver fatigue is lessened if the vehicle may be driven at 30 m.p.h. I have, on occasion, travelled on overnight, long-distance lorries, in the cab, on runs of 200 miles or more. I can imagine nothing more tiring to the driver of the vehicle than having to operate at a speed of 20 m.p.h. throughout, when, very often, on long stretches of open road, he can comfortably drive his vehicle at 30 miles an hour, reaching his destination more quickly, without in any way prejudicing road safety.

Further, it is an anomaly, of course, that heavy vehicles are tied to a speed limit of 20 m.p.h., whereas heavy passenger vehicles are subject to a limit of 30 miles an hour. It seems to me rather ridiculous that human freight should be placed in a higher category as regards speed limit than material freight. It seems to me rather ridiculous that a vehicle such as a large double-decker bus of the heaviest kind should be allowed to travel at 30 miles an hour, whereas a goods vehicle of comparable weight and carrying inanimate objects and material is allowed to travel at only 20 miles an hour.

Finally, there are substantial financial benefits to be derived by owners, by drivers, and by consumers alike, from a change in the speed limit. There is a tripartite interest in this long-overdue reform. Owners ought to be able to operate their vehicles on a more profitable basis. The drivers, as I averred and explained in some detail during the Committee stage, ought to have a direct participation in the extra earnings and profitability of the vehicles concerned. Lastly, it should be possible to pass on a measure of the savings that a 30 miles an hour limit would bring to the hard-pressed consumer who, in these days, is inevitably faced with rising costs on every hand and is very rarely offered a reduction.

The Times this morning had a second leader on this subject. It is one of a large group of reputable journals which have supported the view that this speed limit should be raised at an early date. The Times uses these words: Other Clauses remove discrepancies or loopholes in the present law. There is one notable nettle here that the Minister has not grasped—the 20 m.p.h. speed limit for goods vehicles. This, which is everywhere ignored, has its raison d'etre in lorry drivers' schedules, not in road safety. The law should either he amended so that it will he observed and enforced, or exceeding the limit should cease to be a nominal offence altogether. Whatever the law can do to make the roads safe is inevitably weakened if some of its provisions are openly and habitually disregarded. Bearing in mind that 95 per cent. of these vehicles break the law, I think we would all agree that the law should not continue to be brought into disrepute.

The Economist has been so bold as to say, in its latest issue—26th May—that the Minister proposes to resist this new Clause. I am not sure where it gets its information from or what special prescience it claims, but it is quite emphatic. The Economist, after supporting in the previous week the abolition of the 20 m.p.h. limit, wrote on 26th May: The Minister will resist an Amendment by Mr. Nabarro to raise the speed limit on goods vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. at this stage and in this Bill. He should be pressed"— that is, the Minister; I am pressing him now— to say why. The 20 m.p.h. speed limit for goods vehicles is never enforced at the moment; the sole reason for retaining it is that the lorry drivers have made it clear that they would resist Mr. Nabarro's Amendment. In fact, the lorry drivers have done nothing of the kind. The Economist is wholly wrong in this matter. What the lorry drivers have done, through the Transport and General Workers' Union, is the perfectly reasonable thing, in a complicated matter of this kind, of trying to assure that they will have a proper share of the increased profitability of the vehicles which they drive. That is a principle that I strongly espouse this evening.

We have had years of delay in this matter, and in an effort to try to put a time limit on these negotiations I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he must do one of two things. Either he should accept the new Clause this evening and add it to the Bill, so that when it reaches the Statute Book—it may be longer, but say within a matter of eight weeks—the negotiating bodies are thereby compelled to bring their negotiations to a successful conclusion. Surely, they can go on sitting round the table for that eight weeks and reach a successful conclusion; it ought not to be beyond their wits.

Alternatively, as my right hon. Friend already has the powers under the Statute of 1934 to make a variation order for the rasing of the speed limit of these vehicles from 20 to 30 m.p.h., he can proceed on the basis of the 1934 Statute and say tonight that if I will withdraw my new Clause, he will make such an order under the Statute of 1934 and make it operative from a date forward—say, 31st December next or even 31st March, 1957—to give adequate, and more than adequate, time to the negotiating bodies which I have mentioned to bring their further discussions to a successful conclusion.

The case for this reform is overwhelming, which is most pressingly urgent today on the grounds of national productivity and exports. I leave my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who I hope will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the factor of the improved design of heavy vehicles for our export trade, which is another material consideration. I trust that, when my right hon. Friend replies to this short debate on the new Clause, he will be able to give us a more satisfactory answer, indeed, a conclusive answer, on this problem, and add lustre to his not inconsiderable reputation as present incumbent of the office of Minister of Transport.

Mr. Oliver

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether, if the Clause was passed tonight, the dice would not be loaded against the drivers and in favour of the Road Haulage Association, because once the Clause has been passed, the latter would know that they had got it, and it would only be a question of hanging up on the negotiations, because the Clause which would assist them would already have been approved?

Mr. Nabarro

If I may reply to that point, may I say that I think there is an element of truth in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I am encouraged by the fact that, since we debated the matter in Standing Committee on 15th December last—six months ago—very considerable progress has been made by the negotiating bodles, and, in fact, the issues outstanding have now been so narrowed down as to be capable of resolution within a few weeks. That however, is a matter of wage negotiations into which I do not wish to go further on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

I beg to second the Motion.

It is a pleasure to me to second this Motion at three minutes to ten o'clock, because it gives me the opportunity to point out to the Minister of Transport that it has been pitch dark outside for the last half-hour, but it is not yet officially lighting-up time.

Those who have been interested in this question of road transport for very many years will confirm everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said. Road transport interests have been trying to get this reform brought into force for the last 20 years. There is every reason for doing so at present in fact, it is ridiculous that the law should not be put into proper shape. The real reason why that has not been done during all these years has been the one question of wages.

I think I have seen, in other capacities, nearly every Minister of Transport since Dr. Burgin on this subject, and every Minister has said, "It is very desirable to do this, and we want to do it very soon. We are just waiting for some discussions about wages." Some of us, and, I think, many Conservative Party supporters, are becoming extremely tired of being held up like this. We are tired of a change of the law which is both beneficial and desirable being held up because of disputes over wages.

The point is that, at the moment, under the 20 miles an hour speed limit, the average schedule is about 16 miles an hour, whereas if the speed limit were raised to 30 miles an hour, the average schedule would be about 22 or 23 miles an hour. This means that the London to Birmingham run, which now takes seven or eight hours, could be expected, if the limit were raised to 30 miles an hour, to be completed in five hours. The question then arises: what is to happen to the driver—whether he is to be expected to drive on to another town or be compensated for the hours that he is saving?

I ask the Minister tonight to say that he will accept this proposal and bring this reform into effect, and let these discussions take place after the law has been changed. I do not see why we should keep on waiting for these discussions to conclude, when we have waited for over ten years already. In fact. I think it has really been a form of blackmail, because people have said—[Interruption.] I mean the people who are negotiating these wages, or not negotiating them, and I am not going to name the parties. We know that at present there are discussions between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Road Haulage Association, which have not been brought to a head.

The law in this matter is a laughingstock, and just as much a laughing-stock as the law was in 1930, when, until the passing of the Road Traffic Act of that year, a motor car could not go faster than 20 miles an hour. I do not think we should take into account the question whether those discussions will be completed in a few years or a few months. I ask my right hon. Friend to say that he will change the law, and let the discussions take place in due course afterwards.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. McLeavy

As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has told the House, we had a very long discussion of this matter in Standing Committee, when the hon. Member made a very long speech containing some of the arguments he has adduced tonight in favour of increasing this speed limit. I object, and have always objected, to increasing the speed limit for heavy vehicles because, first, our roads are totally inadequate for excessive speeding by heavy vehicles. It is nonsense for hon. Members glibly to talk about a speed limit of 30 miles an hour for heavy road vehicles when the roads throughout the length and breadth of the land are not conducive to such speed by heavy vehicles.

The question of the construction of motor roads to enable vehicles to proceed at greater speed has been one of constant discussion in the industry and the nation for many years, but no Government have tried yet to tackle the very serious problem of the inadequacy of the roads to allow the increased speed. Before the House agrees to increase the speed limit for heavy vehicles to 30 miles an hour we ought to await the construction of the right type of roads, roads which will allow for such speeding, roads which, if there is such speeding, will save it from endangering the lives of the people.

The hon. Member for Kidderminster has made it perfectly clear where he stands upon this question of the 20 miles an hour or 30 miles an hour speed limit. He makes no excuse about it. He says that it is in the interest of industry that the speed limit should be increased to 30 miles an hour. It may be perfectly true. Why, however, stop at 30 miles an hour? The hon. Member has glibly told the House that 95 per cent. of the heavy goods vehicles today exceed the speed limit. That is a monstrous assertion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all right for hon. Members to laugh. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not."] I do not think that that is the interpretation of the position at all.

Mr. Nabarro

I did not make that assertion. It was made by the then Minister of Transport on 28th July, 1954, when he said: Some recent observations by the Laboratory indicate that on roads in areas not built up about 95 per cent. of heavy goods vehicles exceed 20 m.p.h. and some 65–70 per cent. exceed 25 m.p.h."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 68.] Subsequently, the Lord Chancellor in another place confirmed those figures.

Mr. McLeavy

If the hon. Member will read HANSARD tomorrow he will find that what I said was perfectly true. The hon. Member said that 95 per cent. of the vehicles were exceeding the speed limit, and I have quoted precisely what he said.

I was very surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). If anyone gave the game away, it was he. He said that the Minister should increase the speed limit in order to force an acceptance of the 30 m.p.h. In other words, he asked for the speed limit to be increased before there has been general agreement in the industry on the outstanding matters involved.

I have made it plain that I am opposed to increasing the speed limit on the ground of public safety and because our roads are inadequate for vehicles to travel at that speed. I make no apology for that. I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster—the question of trade union negotiations on this very difficult problem. In spite of my opposition to increasing the speed limit in any circumstances, I say frankly to the Minister that if there are proceeding at the moment delicate negotiations between both sides of the industry on schedules of duty and the payment of drivers, this is not the time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene on behalf of the road haulage employers' side of the industry.

Whatever the Minister's views may be, and whether or no he has finally made up his mind that the speed limit shall be increased in spite of the road difficulties, I urge him not to accept the proposed new Clause and to say quite emphatically to the House and to both sides of the industry that he is not prepared to be used by one side or the other to secure benefits for either the employers or the trade unions.

Where delicate negotiations are proceeding, the Minister should await the conclusion of the negotiations before taking any step in the direction indicated by the new Clause. In view of all the circumstances, it would be unwise to incorporate the Clause in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Kidderminster has pointed out, the Minister already has power under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to vary the speed limit. Why the hon. Gentleman wants to incorporate into the Bill a new Clause to duplicate the provisions and the powers of the Minister in the 1934 Act, I cannot understand. I ask the Minister, in view of all the relevant circumstances, not to accept this proposed new Clause.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

I should not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). I wish that he and other hon. Gentlemen opposite would get it into their heads that this is not merely a question between the trade unions and the Road Haulage Association. It is a matter which affects public safety and public convenience.

As long ago as 1950 I mentioned in the House an instance in my own division. There, for more than 1½ miles, a narrow road winds up the hill to Truro from the village of Tresillian, with a deep ravine on one side and a steep hill on the other. If any heavy vehicle observes the 20 mile per hour limit on that road a queue of other vehicles piles up behind it. I have seen that happen frequently in the last six years and again last Saturday. Somebody, perhaps a motor cyclist, at the back of the queue, gets tired of winding up the hill behind the other vehicles, cuts out, and comes round one of the many corners on the wrong side with no room to pass another vehicle should it meet one. Why we have not had anyone killed on that road during the last six years as a result of the 20 m.p.h. limit, I do not know.

have seen that form of dangerous driving on numerous occasions. The speed limit is merely provocation, because the public gets tired of following meandering vehicles travelling at a ridiculously slow pace. The danger on the roads lies not so much in the imposition of any specific speed but in having one vehicle travelling either much slower or much faster than the remainder.

Of course, we do not want this matter to be settled without agreement between the two sides of the industry, but I wish they would hurry, because it is causing inconvenience and danger to the public.

Mr. Ernest Davies

The view which we on this side of the House hold about raising the speed limit for heavy vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. is well known to all hon. Members. In principle, we are not opposed to such an increase, but we are firmly opposed to its imposition by the Government before agreement has been reached between the trade unions on the one hand and the employers on the other. There is the danger in this new Clause that it would lead to negotiation under duress, that it would be a form of blackmail, as it were, which would not result in satisfactory agreement being reached.

The Road Haulage Association is selfishly responsible for preventing higher productivity being brought into this industry, because it is standing in the way of sharing the benefits of that higher productivity between itself and the transport workers. Speaking in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made that clear. He stated: The deadlock at this moment is because the Road Haulage Association flatly refuse an undertaking to grant to the drivers any substantial part of the proceeds that will flow from increased productivity. That is what is bedevilling the successful conclusion of negotiations. I emphasise that the Road Haulage Association is an unrepresentative and minority body in this connection".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th December, 1955 c. 825.] 10.15 p.m.

The responsibility rests on the Road Haulage Association for selfishly refusing to meet the just demand of the workers that the conditions of operating the vehicles at higher speeds shall be agreed upon before the higher speed limit is permitted. In this respect the transport workers have justice on their side. They are acting rightly and in the interests of not only themselves but road safety. They must have conditions for driving the vehicles which they accept as practicable and as safe as can be. If higher schedules than the men feel capable of carrying out are imposed upon them and they are forced to drive at excessive speeds, the greater danger upon the roads becomes obvious.

While we oppose the Clause as it stands—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) remarked, it is unnecessary because the Minister already has power to raise the speed limit by regulation—

Mr. Nabarro

Yes, the Minister has the power, of course, but what I am anxious to do, and what I have done, is to precipitate the issue, both last December and this evening, in order to try to make the latest incumbent of the office of Minister of Transport make up his mind—after twenty years—to do something which is really desirable.

Mr. Davies

We strongly object to the Minister saying to the industry today, "In six months time I shall allow you to raise the speed limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h., and, therefore, you have to reach agreement." That would lead to negotiations taking place in circumstances which would prejudice the position of the transport workers.

While the Minister may be able to offer his services to assist in the negotiations and help towards an early conclusion, I hope that he will not be tempted by the fluency of his hon. Friend to announce the imposition of the higher speed limit without full negotiations having been concluded.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

Surely it is all right for the Minister to make an order introducing a 30 m.p.h. limit for the purposes of certain sections of the road haulage industry, such as the C licence section and anyone else who has come to an agreement to work new schedules at a higher rate, even if a small part of the industry has not yet come to an agreement?

Mr. Davies

I cannot imagine a worse set of conditions in the industry than there would be in those circumstances, with some sections running vehicles at one limit and others at another limit. Conditions would be impossible.

Mr. Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

If the hon. Gentleman's argument were tenable it would mean that in the Lancashire cotton industry nobody would be working more than two looms. The fact that one cannot get standardisation throughout the industry at one moment surely is not an argument that there is not a case for increasing the speed limit.

Mr. Davies

There are national agreements about wages and working conditions, and they have to be arrived at with the employers. We should strongly oppose the splitting up of the industry into sections having different working conditions. There is a strong case for the increase in the speed limit, provided, of course, that the road safety factor is fully taken into account. There is no doubt that at present the law is not enforced. It cannot be enforced and it is bad for the industry, bad for those who work in it and generally bad when the law is brought into contempt.

We have to reach a state of affairs where we can bring the law into respect again and that can be done only when the speed limit is increased. The conditions for that increase are those laid down by the Transport and General Workers' Union and other transport workers concerned. They are that they must have a fair share of the greater productivity which results from the increase.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

I should like to bring the House back to the Bill. We are not discussing negotiations between the Transport and General Workers' Union and another body of people. On another occasion that might be a proper matter to discuss. We are discussing people who drive dangerously or under the influence of drink, people who are killed on the roads and general safety on the roads. It is in the form of that argument that I rise to support the new Clause.

The question we have to consider is whether heavy goods vehicles should be driven at 30 m.p.h. Whether when they are so driven people should receive more or less or work longer or shorter hours, is a matter for the people in the industry and nothing to do with us. In support of that argument let us consider when this provision was introduced. I may be wrong, but speaking from recollection I believe that it was in 1934, when these vehicles had solid tyres and were fitted with brakes only on the back wheels and with steering systems entirely different from those on modern vehicles.

It was probably true to say that to drive at more than 20 m.p.h. was prima facie dangerous and the regulations were very properly made. That was 22 years ago, and since then we have had entirely different vehicles on the roads. It may be that a heavy goods vehicle could be driven at more than 30 m.p.h. and on the German autobahnen one can see vehicles a great deal bigger than the ones we are discussing driven not at 30 m.p.h., but at a speed which makes them difficult to overtake in the modern highpowered cars of today. They are safe, because the roads are safe.

The modern goods vehicle can be safely driven at 30 m.p.h. on proper occasions. I know that the roads are too small and too narrow, wherever the fault may lie, but if it was safe to drive at 20 m.p.h. in 1934 it is safe to drive at 30 m.p.h. today. To say, "We will drive at 30 m.p.h., if we are paid more" and, presumably, at 40 m.p.h. if paid still more, is wrong and irrelevant to the debate. The Minister should say that the time has come when heavy goods vehicles can properly be driven at 30 m.p.h. Whether drivers should be paid more or less, is something for them to discuss with the employers and is altogether another matter. We are not discussing the terms of employment in the industry.

To negotiate for conditions in which the Minister says that he will make an order, if the two sides of the industry agree to a 30 m.p.h. limit, is blackmailing the Minister. He is saying that he will change the law, if the two sides get agreement. He should at once say that he is concerned only with whether 30 m.p.h. is safe. Having decided that, he should say that the two sides of the industry can reach agreement if they so want.

Heavy vehicles driven at 20 m.p.h. can be a very much greater danger than if driven at 30 m.p.h. We have all seen the blocks along Wading Street day and night and blocks on the Great North Road day and night. Heavy vehicles often have trailers, and when they are driven at 20 m.p.h. there is a great danger that overtaking vehicles may be forced to the wrong side of the road, or have to cut in, and so forth, and thus cause accidents. Let us stick to this Bill. I am not interfering in any way at all with negotiations on wages or conditions which may be going on. I hope that they will be successful, but they have no relation at all to the Bill.

I ask the Minister to take the line that the new Clause should be accepted. To say that the Minister has power by an Order has nothing to do with the question at all. The House of Commons has the responsibility. We are very critical, and I hope we always will be, of Orders which Ministers made without discussion in the House. We have had an opportunity to discuss this matter in the House tonight and I hope that we shall say that the time has come, and indeed has long passed, when heavy vehicles should be driven at 30 m.p.h. We should recognise the facts of the situation as they exist today.

Mr. Oliver

The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) seemed to assume that when the 20 m.p.h. limit was fixed, in 1934, no consultations whatever took place between the Ministry and the trade unions. I assure him that he is quite wrong. Negotiations did, in fact, take place. I was in the House and I was also here when the 1930 Act was passed. I know something about the negotiations which took place. The assumption on which the hon. and learned Member based his argument is that 20 m.p.h. is dangerous and 30 m.p.h. is safe. That is a new one to put over in this House.

I am not suggesting for one moment that 30 m.p.h. is dangerous. I do not suppose that the trade unions arc arguing that; this House is not arguing that. Many times it has been held by both sides of the industry that modern vehicles could run with comparative safety at 30 m.p.h.; but the point is that it is not the trade unions who are holding up this matter. If to concede the point of 30 m.p.h. would restrict the income of the industry, then, of course, there could be an argument based on that; but the trade unions are quite prepared to agree to their members operating at 30 m.p.h. when it is giving to the industry a greater income, yet the industry is not prepared to share that greater income.

Mr. Doughty

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has followed my argument. I hope that I made it clear—if I did not, I repeat it—that I am not concerned with the sharing, or the duties or hours of work. They are totally different matters. We are concerned in the Bill with the question of road safety and the conditions upon the roads, whether it is safe or whether it is not. If the hon. and learned Member is concerned in negotiations, I hope that they will be successful. I am asking the House to say that 30 m.p.h. is a proper speed for heavy goods vehicles.

Mr. Oliver

That is not the point [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] No. The hon. and learned Member is assuming that whilst a limit of 20 m.p.h. prevails on the roads for heavy vehicles it is dangerous and if the 'limit of 20 m.p.h. were increased to 30 the roads would be safe. I do not share that view. I do not suggest that 30 m.p.h. would be dangerous, but the hon. and learned Member is suggesting that 20 m.p.h. is a dangerous speed and 30 m.p.h. is a safe speed.

Mr. Doughty

I never said anything of the sort. I said that it would be safer to drive at 30 m.p.h. than at 20 m.p.h. because at 20 these heavy goods vehicles cause an unnecessary obstruction upon the road. That is all I said. I went no further than that.

Mr. G. Wilson

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) is confused with what I said. I did say that it was dangerous in my constituency to drive at 20 m.p.h. on a certain stretch of road.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Oliver

The assumption is that 30 m.p.h. would be safer than would be 20 m.p.h. I do not accept that, but I am not opposed to 30 m.p.h. I made that quite clear to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) when we discussed this matter in Standing Committee. We are not opposed to increased speed limits, but we are opposed to an increase in the speed limits if the people employed in the industry do not share the benefits.

We must not forget this aspect of the matter. Joint negotiations have been going on in this industry for many years, but we must not impose a 30 m.p.h. limit for the heavy goods vehicles without taking into account any negotiations that are taking place. I took it from what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said that negotiations were proceeding at this particular moment. If they are and are at a critical stage, why cannot we not wait a little longer? I have no doubt that the Minister, if he wants to, has the capacity and the power to exercise pressure on the two parties to come to an agreement fairly quickly.

Mr. Watkinson

Perhaps it might be of assistance were I to intervene at this stage because, without in any way wishing to comment on what has been said, I am rather well up to date on these negotiations at the moment. It might, therefore, help the House if I were to say what the position is. Anyone who has listened to this debate must be very conscious of the fact that there is a lot to be said for and against whatever particular view is taken on this issue. I suppose that it would not have been before the House for more than ten years were that not true.

To get one issue out of the way, I say frankly that I do not think that I should be justified, on grounds of road safety, in refusing to increase the speed limit. As has been pointed out by several hon. Members, the modern lorry, with its vacuum brakes and modern construction, is perfectly capable of being driven on our roads at 30 miles per hour; and whatever we may argue as to how many do it, it is certainly true that a great many of them are so driven.

The draw-bar trailer—the separate trailer—would not be, and I think was never intended to be, affected by any increase in the limit. I wanted to get that aspect out of the way. I know that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) holds his views on road safety most sincerely, but I do not think that it is fair today to say that a 30 m.p.h. speed limit for heavy goods vehicles, excluding locomotives and draw-bar trailers, is a dangerous speed at which to travel.

That, of course, is not really the argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) knows— and I thought he made his case very fairly —the main question here—and I do not entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) here—is one of industrial negotiations, of settling the new schedules, etc., that must inevitably arise from a change in speed limit. It is a question not only of schedules but of subsistence, of different turn round—in fact, to some extent, almost a different system of operating. We cannot just put that on one side.

The first step I took, therefore, when this issue came before me was to try to find out what progress the various parties had made. My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance had quite rightly said in Committee that negotiations were going on between the Road Haulage Association, British Road Services and the trade unions concerned—and particularly the Transport and General Workers' Union. I found that some progress had been made, but not very much.

As a result, I have had several meetings with the parties concerned, with myself in the chair, not, may I certainly say, merely in order to try to negotiate this—that is certainly not my business but that of the parties concerned. I had the meetings in order that they should try to tell me what the difficulties were that lay ahead of them before they could come to me and say, "We have reached agreement and want to tell you when this should be done".

There is another very relevant consideration. There is a time when this decision is convenient to take from the point of view of all the parties and another time when it is inconvenient. I am advised by the experts in the industry that the right time to take this decision is in the early spring of the year when the days are lengthening. I am told that that is likely to cause much less dislocation in the working out of the new schedules.

I had another meeting with all the parties concerned early this week, and they were then able to tell me that some progress had been made, that they had reached certain general—I do not say agreements but principles, for example that no man should be worse off because of any new schedules, etc. I do not want to go into those details, and I am sure that the House will understand that this is a matter of industrial negotiation and not one that we should debate in this House. Equally, it is my duty as Minister to endeavour to see whether the matter will go through smoothly or not, and whether the fact that I have done this could be used by one party or the other as a method of blackmailing the other, if one likes to use that kind of word.

The first thing that I want to say is that in those circumstances I cannot accept my hon. Friend's proposed new Clause, because if I did it would imply an immediate alteration in the speed limit. He quite fairly said that this Bill will probably not become an Act for some months, but even so it would be held to be an immediate increase at a time when negotiations are still going on.

On the other hand, I think it is fair that I should tell the House that I have this morning seen the Road Haulage Association and British Road Services, and they have both informed me that, whatever decision I take, they will not use it as an excuse either to stop negotiations or to import some new conditions into their negotiations. They have also both told me that they are most anxious to continue the progress that they have made until a satisfactory solution is reached, and I think they sincerely believe that they can reach a solution now. I do not think, as I judge the position, that the unions concerned dissent very strongly from that view, although I am not for a moment saying that the whole matter is settled.

To sum up my position, it is this. First. I think we all agree—and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—that this is a change that ought to have been made. Successive Ministers have said that it ought to have been made, and it has been before this House for a very long time. The situation is bringing the law into contempt. It is also having a bad effect on the design and construction of new vehicles, because large numbers are now being made to evade the present speed limit when they ought to have been made merely for their duties on the road.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

I did not intend to intervene, but I cannot allow it to go out that we are all agreed. I do not agree that the speed limit should be raised. I feel very doubtful that if the speed limit were raised to 30 m.p.h. the law could still be enforced. I am very much opposed to the change, and I therefore do not want it to be thought that I am agreed.

Mr. Watkinson

No doubt the hon. Gentleman did not have an opportunity of speaking in the debate. I accept that he does not agree, and I have little doubt that the hon. Member for Bradford. East does not agree, either. I dealt with the question of safety in my opening remarks, and I am now discussing the industrial aspects of the question.

I am not prepared to accept the new Clause, because I think that it would be felt, and perhaps rightly so, by the parties to the negotiations, that I or the House was trying to force their hand. Equally, I think we must bring this controversy to an end. It is too late, on the whole, to make the change this year, and the right time to make it is in the spring of the year. Therefore, it is my disposition to make this change in the early spring months of next year.

Mr. Nabarro

Hear, hear.

Mr. Watkinson

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will not say "Hear, hear" too quickly, until he understands quite clearly what I am undertaking to do. Having said that I am not prepared to accept his new Clause, I rest on my proper powers, which are perfectly constitutional, notwithstanding what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East says, to make an Order which can vary the speed limit at any time when I make and lay an Order before this House, provided, of course, that the House accepts it.

I have been assured by the parties concerned that they will go on with these, I think, reasonably fruitful negotiations until they have achieved success. Therefore, I shall not take any action at the moment. I shall probably lay an Order fairly soon after the House returns after the Summer Recess, which will give the parties a further four months to reach agreement; and I consider and hope that in that time they should be well able to do that. Then, I shall lay the Order, which will sot a future date. So that the vehicle building side of the industry can have knowledge and notice of what will happen, that date is likely to be in the early months of 1957.

That is, on the whole, about the fairest compromise that we can achieve. It gives everybody a chance to get a sensible solution. It gives plenty of warning to everybody and it does not coerce anybody, which I am anxious not to do. On this assurance which I have given to the House, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his new Clause.

Mr. Nabarro

In view of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. At the same time, I express my gratitude to him for a very effective compromise, which should suit every side of the industry. I hope that the matter may be brought to successful fruition and completion on a date not later than 31st March, 1957.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Watkinson

I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.

It is obviously time to move this Motion. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and to hon. Members, on both sides for making so much progress with a difficult and technical Bill. It gives me the hope that we ought to be able to complete the Report stage of the Bill tomorrow. Then we can take the Third Reading on Friday.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.