MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMITS) (Hansard, 2 August 1966)

§ Mr. Swingler
I beg to move, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) (Amendment) Regulations, 1966, dated 19th July, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps it would be convenient to take with these Regulations the following Regulations: That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Motorways) Regulations, 1966, dated 19th July, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

§ Mr. Swingler
That is convenient, Sir.
414 Maximum speed limits for specified classes of vehicles were set out in the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Under Section 24 of that Act, the Minister of Transport may, by Regulations subject to the approval of each House of Parliament, vary these speed limits.
The First Schedule to the Act was replaced by a new Schedule by means of the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1962, which sets out the limits currently applying to the specified classes of vehicles on roads generally. And under the identical power which Section 24 replaced, the Minister made the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, 1959, which substituted as respects vehicles driven on special roads—that is, motorways—a different speed limit schedule from that applicable to vehicles on roads generally. It imposed a limit only on vehicles drawing certain trailers, and the limit was 40 m.p.h.
The effect of the first set of Regulations for which approval is sought is to substitute a new paragraph (1) in the 1962 Schedule, so making the following changes in limits applying on roads generally: the speed limit for public service vehicles—that is, buses and coaches operating under a public service vehicle licence issued by the Traffic Commissioners—is raised from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h.; for the same vehicles when drawing a trailer, the limit is increased from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h.; and the limit for motor cars and dual purpose vehicles towing a glider trailer—that is, a trailer constructed solely for the purpose of carrying a glider or ancillary equipment—is raised to 40 m.p.h. instead of 30 m.p.h.
The effect of the second Regulations for which approval is sought is to replace the 40 m.p.h. speed limit applicable to vehicles drawing trailers on motorways by a 50 m.p.h. limit when the drawing vehicle is a bus or coach with a public service vehicle licence granted under Section 127 of the 1960 Act.
The increased speed limits I have mentioned will enable the vehicles concerned to keep up more readily with the general flow of traffic and the reduced need for other vehicles to overtake them will benefit road safety. In regard to buses and coaches, it is important to realise 415 that there are strong economic reasons why the speed of these vehicles should not be restricted any more than is essential on grounds of safety, quick journeys being a factor in making public transport attractive to the travelling public.
The licensing system for buses and coaches involves meticulous inspection, which makes them among the safest vehicles on the roads, and their highly skilled drivers have to pass special driving tests. For these vehicles the increased speed limits are in keeping with improvements in their design and safety in recent years. The increases in the speed limits for buses and coaches drawing trailers will be of benefit, in particular, to British European Airways. Their coaches operating between West London Air Terminal and London (Heathrow) Airport are authorised to draw specially approved luggage trailers which have been designed and tested for high-speed travel.
The increased limit for glider trailers drawn by motor cars or estate cars recognises that the design and construction of these trailers makes them every bit as safe for towing at 40 m.p.h. as other kinds of small trailers already permitted to travel at that speed. These trailers have a low centre of gravity and are more stable than many caravans.
I hope that the House will now approve the two sets of Regulations.

§ Mr. Webster
I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for explaining the Order with his customary clarity. We very much welcome anything which keeps up with the advance of technology. It would be wrong of me to allow this happy moment to pass without congratulating him, for the first time since his party came to office, on raising a speed limit. It is a great improvement, and I hope that he will continue in this pleasant fashion.
We welcome the provision in respect of buses and very much agree with the points which he made about the very high standard of public service vehicles. The testing of both vehicle and driver is stringent, and it is right that this should be acknowledged and that these vehicles should be speeded on their way so that they do not cause the bunching of traffic on a motorway or any other 416 road. I appreciate the position about control on a motorway. This is a welcome improvement and, again, as long as it is in conformity with public safety, we also welcome the speeding of the other vehicles.
It was only in 1961 that the speed limit for buses was increased from 30 to 40 m.p.h. This improvement is very much in line with modern thinking. When reading the Regulations I was surprised to see reference to the towing of gliders. As a former glider pilot who has been towed behind aircraft, I must say that I have never been towed behind a motor car. I gather that this is a loophole in previous Regulations, but I am sure that the Conservative Party take no responsibility for it. Anything which will assist in smoothing the flow of traffic on our roads and avoiding bunching and frustration will assist in improving safety, and as far as this can be done we welcome it.
On the other hand we look at a baffling selection of speed limits—almost like a wine list. In previous debates on this subject the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) spoke of the great difficulty in deciding the speed at which particular vehicles may travel. I wonder whether in future these speed limits can be simplified. The problem is one of enforcement, which is difficult enough both on the motorways and on the other roads. I do not want to digress on to enforcement on motorways, but most of us who travel on them would like to see more publicity given to the patrol vehicles so that they may be more easily spotted. They have a very good effect on making drivers keep within the law, not necessarily by their example—although the patrol vehicle drivers are excellent drivers—but because they show that the law is being enforced. That is a good thing, and I wish we saw more of it. In turn it would make the job of the police much easier.
I deplore anything which is done which mitigates the powers of the police in assisting in road safety, but anything in the Regulations which assists to accelerate the speed of traffic and to bring it up to the speed of technology we very much welcome.