HC Deb 20 June 1984 vol 62 cc371-5

9 pm

Sir Hector Monro

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 25, line 14, at end insert 'including a requirement that no hump may exceed 4 inches in height'.

The First Deputy Chairman

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 230, in clause 150, page 97, line 8, after 'section', insert 'and sections 35 to 39'.

No. 231, in page 97, line 9, at end insert '(in this Act referred to as "the commencement of this Act"). (2A) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint—

  • sections 35 to 39;
  • section 149(3) and Schedule 10 in so far as they relate to the Transport Act 1981.'.

Sir Hector Monro

We have already heard part of the argument about humps, so I shall be brief. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will congratulate me on sitting here for five hours without mentioning the bypasses at Dumfries and Annan, which are overdue and essential.

I presume that the provision for humps was put into the Transport Act 1981 because of a brainwave of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. I am incredulous that the Scottish Office should translate what was in that Act into this Roads Bill dealing with Scotland. There is no doubt in my mind that these humps, or sleeping policemen, are a danger, particularly to cyclists and motor cyclists, and exceptionally so if part of the road is covered in snow. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has told us about what the Minister calls rumble strips. To meet some of those at speed in the early stages of the work on the A9 was disconcerting. I hope the Minister will consider carefully whether this practice should be continued where high-speed motoring can take place safely on a fine new road.

I proposed the amendment because there is such a variation in the size of the humps and of sleeping policemen on private roads. I am sure the Minister has noted that anywhere there are sleeping policemen or humps the roadside is littered with exhaust pipes that have been hauled off by the humps because they have been put at too high an elevation and with the wrong gradient of slope. Therefore, I propose that there should be a maximum height of 4 in. to save the exhaust pipes of motor cars and in particular to make it more safe for motor cyclists and cyclists who may meet these obstructions in the road unexpectedly as, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will no doubt say, it is impossible to see them in good time. I am sure the Minister will accept my proposal.

I am speaking briefly on the amendment because I know that the Minister will say that there will not be any sleeping policemen without tremendous consultation with every conceivable road user, all the motoring organisations, local authorities, road traffic engineers and all the rest of them. The thought that he might be in a position at the end of the day to authorise humps fills me with horror. I hope that this will not take place in Scotland. The Minister should at least accept my amendment which will show that the Scottish Office is on the wrong road relative to humps.

Mr. Bill Walker

No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has made what he judges to be a clear response to my previous intervention. However, I wish to speak in support of the amendment proposed by him. I can find no reference in the Bill to rumble strips, though they may be mentioned, because it is a fairly large Bill. There are references to nearly all the other things that one finds on the road surface, so if there is no reference to rumble strips I wonder why they are not mentioned.

When considering the proposal for the height of the humps to be 4 in., my hon. Friend would be well advised to visit the new bypass at Killiecrankie. Some changes were made in the road works to permit this bypass, of which I heartily approve. My hon. Friend made this possible. Before one enters the bypass, one meets rumble strips. I thought that they were a modern version of sleeping policemen, because they are about the same size as many other sleeping policemen whom I have met. [Laughter.] I thought that Labour Members would enjoy that. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Armstrong, that this is not the most exciting of debates, and any levity is helpful.

Sleeping policemen are just round humps to the ordinary layman. The rumbling strips on the A9 at Killiecrankie are similar to humps on the road. Certainly they are under 4 in, high. They are a certain distance apart, which make them appear to be the same type of thing. Indeed, they achieve the same objective—to slow the traffic down. In that respect they are successful. They work. I am not objecting to their presence. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that they do not appear to be referred to in the Bill. They certainly come under the 4 in. in height for which my hon. Friend was calling, and they are effective.

Mr. George Robertson

I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The outburst on road humps which he waited five hours to deliver was extraordinary. I remind him that road humps exist in law not because of some interfering bureaucrat, nor even because of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, but through the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who moved a new clause in Committee on the Transport Bill two years ago, thereby introducing the concept of road humps into law. His hon. Friends in the Government accepted the new clause and it has now become law. They became law because they worked. They slow down traffic.

The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at a case that came before the courts only last week. Record compensation was paid when an American was killed in a road crash between Prestwick airport and Glasgow. It was alleged that the car was being driven at speeds in excess of 100 mph.

Mr. Home Robertson

Is my hon. Frind suggesting that there should be road humps on that road?

Mr. George Robertson

My hon. Friend is jumping in ahead of me. I am trying to make the point that in Britain speed is a matter of increasing concern to the community. The court case last week illustrated the fact that we are gradually tolerating higher and higher speeds on the roads. A serious lobby is now active in the House arguing for higher speed limits on Britain's roads. The United States, the very pinnacle of free enterprise, has universal speed limits on all its roads of 56 mph, not only for energy conservation, but because it is safer.

We should strongly resist the idea that speed limits should be increased. In urban areas and in specific areas where road humps are being used there is a considerable case for saying that traffic speeds should be reduced. Simply putting up a small sign saying 15 mph or 20 mph is not enough. A physical obstacle with the appropriate warnings is required to ensure that the traffic travels at a speed at which pedestrians are safe. Urban areas are in great danger of being ruled by the motor car. Somebody once described drivers as motorised fascists—if that is not an unparliamentary expression. Our lifestyle is being dictated by motor cars and the threat which they present. There is nothing wrong with, and a considerable amount to be said for, road humps to reduce compulsorily the speed of traffic in areas where traffic is a hazard. Therefore, I urge the Minister to avoid the siren voices coming to him from below the Gangway and stand up for the bipartisan policy which led to road humps being introduced into legislation.

Mr. Craigen

Clauses 33 to 39 will enable roads authorities to install road humps on roads. They will come into effect on 1 January 1985 unless the House agrees to accept the amendments which have been tabled.

I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said. I know his interest in road safety. I take the view that the problem facing us on many of our roads is not so much humps as lumps. This harks back to the condition of some of our roads. If we intend to expend a lot of energy on constructing road humps, we should be clear how effective they will be.

I am aware that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro) has a vintage Bentley. When he said that he wanted 4 in. humps I thought that he was trying to score a point on us. With an Austin Allegro, 3 in. would be more in tune with what I would find acceptable.

It is important to take time to consider how the experience in England unfolds before road humps are proliferated all over Scotland. Indeed, quite a few have been constructed already. I ask the Minister to tell us the number of road humps which the Scottish Office has authorised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) perceptively noted, the earlier clause confirmed the either/or situation. Will most of the road humps come direct from Scottish Office authorisation, or through the devolution of road hump powers? It would be useful if the Minister could comment on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, who was persuasive over his road safety considerations, pointed out that the introduction of road humps was a tactical device to try to stave off the introduction of safety belts.

Mr. Allan Stewart

My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is that rumble strips are not defined in the Bill, but if he has any detailed questions about their application we shall doubtless be able to discuss the matter.

I appreciate the point of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and I am not at all unsympathetic to it. If and when my right hon. Friend comes to make recommendations on the subject under clause 37, he will have the proposal in the amendment much in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it would be unfortunate if the flexibility of the recommendations which are not yet determined were to be fettered, however desirable in principle.

I accept my hon. Friend's point about the 4 in. limit. The equivalent in English regulations allows a 15 per cent. tolerance on the 4 in. limit. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it would be better not to write such a point of detail into primary legislation. It is more appropriate to the regulations. I give the assurance that, in the event of regulations being drawn up, the presumption will be that the height specification will not exceed that of regulations south of the border. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

9.15 pm

On amendments Nos. 230 and 231, I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that it would be in exceptional circumstances only that the authorisation power of the Secretary of State would be used. I can confirm that no humps on roads have as yet been authorised, and that those in Scotland are purely on private roads. The amendment of the hon. Member for Maryhill could be defined as a "canny" amendment. He said that the Government should take a hard look at the effect of road humps in England before taking any action in Scotland. However, I believe that we have had an interesting debate on them. Hon. Members have, of course, but forward different points of view. I believe that the proposal is sensible, and I shall later commend amendments Nos. 230 and 231 to the House.

Sir Hector Monro

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his constructive and sympathetic reply to the debate. I could have been much rougher on the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He apparently wants to have sleeping policemen from London to Glasgow, so that on one can go at more than 20 mph and so that they jump like kangaroos all the way. Obviously, there are limits to reducing the speed at which cars travel, and there would be no point in building motorways that are designed for high speed traffic if we were then to use sleeping policemen, as the hon. Gentleman desires.

However, in view of my hon. Friend's approach to the debate and his undertaking to give the matter serious consideration when the regulations are drawn up, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to