§ 16. Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Transport what further steps he has taken to ensure that smoke is not emitted from vehicles on the public highway; if he is satisfied with the present position; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MarplesI have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Hopkins) on 28th November.
§ Mr. MallalieuBut is not the Minister aware that almost every time we undertake a long journey we still see this black smoke being emitted? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Even if it is impossible to police all the miles of roads, is there not some other way in which action could be taken? There 1315 might be voluntary reports to chief constables, six such reports perhaps leading to prosecution—or something like that.
§ Mr. MarplesThis is a difficult problem, not because the will is not there but because it is scientifically difficult to invent a device to measure the smoke emitted, and so secure a successful prosecution in the courts. We have had very great difficulty. We have gone to court, and the lawyers—as the House will be surprised to know—have argued at length about it, and there have been very few successful prosecutions. The difficulty is to get a device that will scientifically measure the smoke emitted, but in my original reply I have said that, pending such a device being invented, a Regulation has been put into operation. Special spot road checks are being held this year, and the measures taken are having good results. The difficulty is that a spot road check catches a number of drivers in the first half hour, after which there is a system of signalling from those drivers to other drivers which means that we do not catch as many in the succeeding half hour.
§ Mr. D. SmithCan my right hon. Friend say whether there has been an increase in prosecutions since the Regulations were made?
§ Mr. MarplesI could not say that without notice, but I know that we observed 83,000 lorries. Of those, 9,800 were emitting black smoke; 6,200 were stopped, of which 132 were taken out of service immediately. There were 3,900 vehicles threatened with prohibition from carrying goods unless they later satisfied a second test. In addition, 4,000 warning letters were sent. I agree that it is not a lot, but it is the best we can do without a measuring device. I only hope that we can get a measuring device, and then there will not be any lack of enforcement.
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltAs all vehicles seem to emit smoke, and the big vehicles seem to emit more than the small ones, has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of compelling public service and commercial vehicles to take their exhaust pipes out to the top, instead of to the rear?
§ Mr. MarplesI have gone into that very carefully with the Road Research Laboratory. The difficulty is that diesel fumes are heavier than air, and if they go out at the top they fall to the road. What happens is that not the motorist or cyclist just behind but others further behind get it all. Therefore, on balance, it is better to have the exhaust pipe for diesel fumes lower down than higher up.