Goods Vehicles

HC Deb 08 June 1988 vol 134 cc944-60

Mr. Speaker

Before I call upon the Minister to move the motion, I must call the attention of the House to a misprint on the Order Paper in line 6 of the motion. After the word "suppression" the words so as to make its application, like the proposed Directive on should he inserted.

10.15 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8284/87 on spray suppression devices and lateral protection (sideguards) for certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers; and endorses the Government's objectives of securing Community arrangements which would not require more stringent standards than those required in the United Kingdom at present, and amendment of the proposed Directive on spray suppression so as to make its application, like the proposed Directive on sideguards, permissive rather than mandatory, and restricted in scope to the same categories of vehicles as are covered by the existing United Kingdom Regulations. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) for pointing out that some words had been omitted from the motion.

Today we are to consider two proposals from the Commission. They were issued by the Commission in September last year. Both proposals are for directives for heavy lorries and their trailers, one for spray suppression devices and the other for lateral protection devices or sideguards. The proposals are for a mandatory directive for spray suppression devices and a permissive directive for sideguards. Both invoke article 100 as their legal basis. They would both have a dual role of making progress and improving safety and avoiding the possibility of member states erecting barriers to trade by applying unique national standards.

In the negotiations in Brussels the measure on spray suppression devices has aroused considerable opposition from some member states. It is unlikely that it will be adopted in the foreseeable future. There is likely to be agreement that the proposal for sideguards should be amended to correspond with the Economic Commission for Europe regulation. All member states are likely to find such an amendment acceptable.

Although at present there seems little prospect of a common position being adopted by the Council, there is a possibility that as the current presidency draws to a close it will try to achieve a common position to add to its tally of successes. We have recently been advised that such an attempt could be made this month. In our negotiations in Brussels these two proposals have been dealt with together. They are separate in their subject matter.

The sideguard proposal sets standards for the design and construction of lateral protection to be fitted to heavy goods vehicles and their trailers over 3.5 tonnes maximum gross vehicle weight. The guards cover the open space in front of the rear wheels and are intended to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from falling under the side of the vehicle and being run over by the rear wheels.

We have had requirements in regulations for sideguards in the United Kingdom since 1983. France and Holland also have similar requirements for them on some categories of heavy vehicle. To achieve harmonisation of requirements throughout Europe, discussions have been held in Geneva and an ECE regulation has been prepared. This contains, for heavy vehicles over 12 tonnes and trailers over 10 tonnes maximum weight, requirements for flat sideguard rails similar to those in our present construction and use regulations. For vehicles from 3.5 tonnes to 12 tonnes the ECE regulation allows round bars, as specified in the French regulations, instead of flat rails. In our view, the round bars proposed for smaller goods vehicles offer slightly less protection than the flat rails which the current United Kingdom regulations require. A concession on that point was necessary to reach European agreement for flat rails to be part of the standard in the ECE regulation applicable to the heavier goods vehicles and trailers which predominate in international traffic. Such an agreement is in our interests as it paves the way for international haulage vehicles from Europe being fitted with sideguards similar to those required for United Kingdom registered vehicles.

All member states were party to the discussions in the United Nations ECE. In the negotiations in Brussels there was agreement among member states that the Commission proposal for sideguards should be slightly amended to align with the ECE regulation. There are signs that the Commission will propose such an amendment. It has not yet done so. If it does, it will be in the United Kingdom interest to support the sideguard proposal as it would then align more closely with the present United Kingdom requirements.

There are two implications for vehicles operating in the United Kingdom, be they purely national or international operations. It would be a continued requirement for operators or manufacturers of trucks over 12 tonnes and trailers over 10 tonnes to fit the more robust flat rail sideguards. However, for lighter vehicles they would have the option of fitting the rounded sideguards on very much the established self-certification basis. If they chose to fit the sideguards to meet the requirements of the directive, they would need type approval. In effect, I envisage maintenance of the status quo on this provision.

In addition, international transport operators, that is, those registered in the United Kingdom and in those member states that adopt the directive, will now have to fit sideguards. Gone will be the opportunity to dodge United Kingdom law by registering as an international operator.

I will now turn to the question of spray suppression devices, the second of the Commission proposals which we are to consider. Since 1986 the United Kingdom has been the only country to have requirements in regulations for the design and construction of spray suppression devices. These have been required to be fitted only to new heavy goods vehicles and trailers over 12 tonnes and 3.5 tonnes maximum gross weight respectively and to trailers with two or more axles already in service over 16 tonnes maximum gross weight.

The technical contents now contained in the Commission's proposals are based on and are similar to the present United Kingdom requirements for spray suppression devices.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Like my hon. Friends and Opposition Members, I have had quite a lot of experience of driving along motorways. I have often done so in a typical English summer when it is pouring with rain and there is about an inch of rain in five hours. Hon. Members will have noticed, to their dismay and distress, lorry overtaking lorry under these conditions. They will themselves have attempted to pass the second lorry in the overtaking lane when that lorry was going at about 70 mph. There is no visibility. One cannot see. One is going through a mist and is putting one's life in the hands of the Almighty. It is incredibly dangerous. That is happening under the regulations which my hon. Friend says we already have in the United Kingdom and which we are asking the Europeans to bless and agree with.

My hon. Friend is normally robust on the subject of road safety. Cannot he come forward with a proper system so that the motoring public is not put at risk by the maniac juggernaut drivers who travel at speeds which are too fast when the roads are awash with water? It is devastatingly dangerous.

Mr. Bottomley

My hon. Friend makes his point with vigour. If I had my way, and if we were debating my prejudices rather than the draft directive of the European Commission, I would put forward a proposal that any lorry which did not have effective spray suppression would be allowed to travel at only 50 mph if its windscreen wipers were on. But I have not yet managed to convince my officials or the European Commission about that. My hon. Friend has made the sort of point which has often been made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), who will probably want to speak.

I return to the technical contents of the Commission's proposals which are based on or are similar to the present United Kingdom requirements for spray suppression devices. Although they are similar, there are a small number of differences where the technical content in the Commission's proposals departs from the technical characteristics of our regulations, particularly in the positioning of the mudflaps more closely behind the tyre which may result in them being damaged more easily than with the United Kingdom requirements, without them necessarily being more effective in reducing spray. These points of difference in the detail of the technical content have been discussed in negotiations in Brussels but would need to be resolved much more closely to our requirements before they are likely to be acceptable to the United Kingdom.

As I outlined earlier, the United Kingdom has taken the lead on spray suppression devices; that news will he welcome to my hon. Friends. The United Kingdom is the only country to have such requirements. For retrospective fitment the United Kingdom requirements apply only to trailers over 16 tonnes maximum gross vehicle weight with two or more axles. Although there were only 140,000 of these, we allowed three years for the retrospective fitting of these devices on these vehicles.

As proposed in article 9, the directive brings the weight down to 3.5 tonnes maximum gross vehicle weight and makes it applicable to all goods vehicles and trailers above that weight, both new and in service. This will considerably increase the number of goods vehicles, by about 430,000, which would have to be retrospectively fitted with these devices. This would be a mammoth task three times greater than previously experienced in the retrofit programme on heavy trailers. From our experience, it is clear that the Commission's deadline of 1989 for the completion of its proposed retrospective fitment could not be met. Such a programme would take years and it is estimated that it would cost about £40 million.

The United Kingdom Government are not in favour of compulsory retrospective fitment of anti-spray devices to all goods vehicles from 3.5 tonnes upwards. Heavy trailers of four or five-axle articulated vehicles are already required to be fitted with these devices. These constitute 40 per cent. of motorway goods vehicle traffic. Their size, speed and generally poor aerodynamics and weight result in them being significant spray propagators, much more so than the relatively light, potentially more sleek and better mud-guarded lighter goods vehicles. Their length makes overtaking in spray particularly hazardous, but that is not the case with smaller vehicles. It is on motorways that speeds are highest and the spray worst.

Other types of vehicle such as rigid lorries and tractor units on the roads now have reasonable mudguards, and so a retrospective programme would offer minimal spray nuisance reduction and would not be cost effective. Application to new heavy vehicles is relatively simple and cost effective. In general, we get good value from the fitting of these devices to vehicles that have high motorway mileage. This is not the case for lorries below 12 tonnes gross. These smaller vehicles generally do not generate spray to the same extent as the heavier ones with greater number of axles and, in addition, they are most generally used on ordinary roads where spray is much less of a problem than on motorways.

The type and condition of roads, speed limits and climatic conditions can all affect spray. These vary considerably across the Community. It is likely that each member state will want to select the categories of vehicles to which these devices should be fitted to suit the particular operating conditions in each country—if they wish to fit them at all. It would be difficult to include all these variations under a mandatory structure. A permissive directive would allow such a flexible approach. In negotiations in Brussels no member state was able to support the Commission's proposals for the directive to be mandatory. Adoption in its present form is unlikely to achieve common agreement. For the reasons I have outlined, we shall be arguing strongly against the retrospective aspects of the directive other than for heavy trailers. We shall support other member states in their rejection of mandatory provisions.

The Government would support amendments to the proposed anti-spray directive to make its application permissive and to restrict its application to the same vehicles as those covered by the existing United Kingdom requirements Our record in both these areas is one of trying to promote sensible advances in improved safety benefits within technically and economically realistic limits.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

Can the Minister enlighten the House about the exact meaning of "a permissive directive"?

Mr. Bottomley

A permissive directive allows member states to make requirements of their national operators.

Anti-spray devices and sideguards improve the safety of heavy goods vehicles. International directives will ensure that United Kingdom operators, whether engaged in national or international transport, will be required to fit the devices. A permissive directive on spray will give the best chance of a directive being promulgated. The motion promotes the best interests of the United Kingdom.

10.28 pm

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)

I relished the moment of rare candour when we saw what might be described in unparliamentary terms as the real Peter Bottomley inside the Minister. I am rather intrigued by this concept of the separation of power and responsibility. There is the responsible man and the powerless Minister. As the Minister knows, I have some respect for his qualities. He speaks well about road safety but clearly he is so shackled by the culture and inheritance of his Department that the problems begin at that point.

As the debate is about the manner in which the European Community is approaching the safety of heavy goods vehicles and about the manner in which the Department of Transport is approaching such vehicles, it might be worth refreshing hon. Members' memories about the comments made in the 18th report of the Public Accounts Committee published in February. On the regulation of heavy lorries it said: Throughout our examination we were very concerned about the long delays by DTp in addressing fundamental issues about the effects of heavy lorries and a lack of urgency in promoting essential research. Unfortunately, that charge is well made and difficult for the Department to describe as unfair.

Although the Minister tells us that the British Government were the first, and the only Government so far, to adopt spray suppression measures, those measures were hastily adopted and showed signs of being a political response to a problem about which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made the usual Comment of the motorist. In reality, inadequate research had been done on that basis. The Government's White Paper in response to the Armitage report in 1981 said: A programme of research and trials on reducing spray from heavy lorries is also nearing completion. The Government hopes this research will produce effective solutions to the problem. Unfortunately, despite the passage of seven years, that research has not produced the answers.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Perhaps in company with the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, which also has a keen and serious interest, the hon. Gentleman might be able to accept an invitation, which I extend now, to come and see spray suppression devices being tested at the Transport and Road Research laboratory at Crowthorne. We do not know everything that is to be known, but we know a great deal more than we did when the Armitage report came out. Most of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North who may be on his way back, will realise that many lorries have effective spray suppression. The trouble is that many have not.

Mr. Lloyd

In that case, if the research exists but has not been implemented, we have not advanced the argument or the level of safety. There is still considerable confusion about the merits of spray suppression. The Freight Transport Association, which does not and cannot claim to come to the debate with clean hands, makes the point about the research that it conducted that the results of the tests raised considerable doubts as to the ability of systems constructed to the standard to make any noticeable impression on the nuisance of spray from large commercial vehicles. If the FTA is wrong, at no point has the Department of Transport published in a systematic form the evidence that shows why and how it is wrong. It is important that that should be done because the haulage industry clearly will resist any attempt to increase its operating costs.

Mr. Sheerman

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Lloyd

In a moment. Clearly the FTA will resist any measure that increases its costs. It is the responsibility of the House to make a rational judgment about the needs of safety irrespective of that resistance. But if the haulage industry resists what it sees as very arbitarily laid standards, that would increase its credibility in other areas and do no service to the argument about heavy goods vehicle safety.

Mr. Sheerman

Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House about how much the FTA thinks that fitting such spray suppression equipment that is currently mandatory in this country puts on the cost of the average vehicle that its members run?

Mr. Lloyd

The Minister will confirm whether I am right or wrong, but the generally accepted figures are about £40 million initially, and then some £2 million on an annual basis.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

If the whole of the draft directive came into effect, as the FTA and the hon. Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) know, the figure would be insignificant in terms of the cost of buying a new HGV. The real question that we are considering is whether it is worth applying the directive retrospectively to lighter goods vehicles. In practice, it is generally accepted that it is not. It is really a question whether we can get the heavy goods vehicles to have effective spray suppression and whether we continue—and the Government need to take a lead in this—the research that will lead to even more effective spray suppression. About two thirds of the water thrown up by an HGV at 60 mph can be caught and demisted with the present knowledge. We hope to be able to go further.

Mr. Lloyd

A lorry travelling at 60 mph throws up about 60 gallons of water a minute, so about one gallon is still thrown on the car behind every three seconds. That is a lot of water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) may have misunderstood me. The Department has sat on the research for too long. This issue has not been a priority since 1981 but the Minister ought to be able to tell us what the research shows. The Department should be considering other methods, such as different road surfaces. The experience of the Netherlands is that an improvement can be achieved by increasing the porosity, if that is the right word, of roads.

Mr. Bottomley

Permeability.

Mr. Lloyd

I am advised that it is permeability, and on this occasion I am prepared to take the Minister's advice.

When the Minister spoke as a human being and not as a powerless Minister, he said that the problem is speed. The Department's national speed survey for 1982—the most recent available—suggested that nearly 40 per cent. of HGVs break the 60-mph limit on motorways. It is recognised that the spray problem really begins at speeds over 40 mph and that the problem is severe at 60 mph as it grows out of all proportion to the increase in speed. The failure to detect those who break the speed limit is crucial here. We do not need further research, just resources.

What normally happens in the Council of Ministers when an issue such as this is raised is that it is tossed around until a compromise is reached. With spray suppression, that compromise will almost inevitably be arbitrary and irrelevant to most member nations. It does not take a genius to recognise that the problem in Greece or southern Italy is fundamentally different from that in Britain. It is therefore likely that southern European members will not accept spray suppression measures in any form.

I am dubious about having permissive regulations. They would provide a ceiling but no floor. When the Department of Transport finally makes a research breakthrough it will not be able to commit this country to an improved standard of spray suppression, should it be necessary. If a permissive document were accepted, we would be limited by the highest standards set by the European Community. The Minister should clarify that important issue.

I do not believe for one second that this directive has a chance of doing anything. It is almost irrelevant to be detaining the House discussing it. We want national legislation that addresses the problems of road surfaces and speeding heavy goods vehicles and tries to introduce standards that will guarantee the maximum possible reduction of nuisance from spray.

I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions about sideguards, or lateral protection as the Eurocrats prefer to call them. They may appear to be technical, but nevertheless they are important. At present, the United Kingdom's standard of sideguard protection applies to heavy goods vehicles of 12 tonnes or more. Earlier, the Minister managed to clear the fog about the wording of the motion, but he has not managed to clear the intellectual fog concerning the figure of 12 tonnes. The probability of a child being dragged off a bicycle under the back wheels of a lorry depends not on axle or laden weights but on the physical construction of the space between front and rear wheels and the possibility of pedestrians and cyclists—the two most obvious groups—disappearing into the space at the side of the lorry. I know of no report—be it the Armitage report or the report of the Transport Select Committee—that recommended the fitting of sideguards to lorries of 12 tonnes. I foresee no reason why the restriction should apply simply to lorries weighing 12 tonnes. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously why we should not increase the applicability of sideguards to heavy goods vehicles that at present are exempted.

I should like to put a point to the Minister that was made clearly at the 10th international technical conference on experimental vehicles, about which the Minister knows much, partly because it was hosted by the "Department of Transportation, of Her Majesty's Government", as it is described in the conference report.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Where did that come from?

Mr. Lloyd

I can assure the Minister that this is not a leak from the Department of Transport. I have not been as lucky as some of my other colleagues with leaks from other Departments.

The conference discussed sideguards and said: With a sideguard fitted that just meets the UK construction and use regulation, the pedal cyclist was run over"— hon. Members will be glad to hear that this was a simulated test— by the wheels of the semitrailer in about 40 per cent. of the test runs. That test conformed to current standards, but when the sideguard was reduced to a level of 300mm above the ground the probability of the cyclist being run over was reduced to almost zero.

Experience from Japan suggests that a 400mm level of operation is not only practical but effective in reducing death. While the present regulations almost certainly have reduced the death rate, an increase to a higher standard would reduce it further. I urge the Minister to consider that matter seriously.

The Minister was wrong to argue that these regulations will pave the way for European international haulage vehicles being fitted with sideguards similar to those fitted to British vehicles. The directive, if implemented on a permissive basis, will allow European heavy goods vehicles from countries that choose not to adopt sideguards standards to travel on British roads. That would not only give them a competitive advantage over British operators but would make our roads considerably less safe than they are already. The Minister should look carefully at permissive legislation.

There is a major omission. The overwhelming advice from all reputable documents in the past has been that the greatest area of improvement in the safety of heavy goods vehicles lay in the introduction of front underrun guard protection. That was the Armitage report's recommendation. It said: We consider that the greatest and most worthwhile improvements are likely to be obtained from the introduction of under-run and other guards all round the lorry, including energy-absorbing guards. We recommend that these should be made mandatory for all new lorries. Seven years on we are still awaiting that. That may reflect again the lack of priority given to such safety research within the Department. In 1981 the Department felt that it was close to an acceptable solution and we still do not have that. That should be in the European directive if it is to have any force. It would be of far more significant benefit to road safety than spray suppression or sideguards, but I do not want to dismiss the value of both those things.

The concept of European legislation is rather dubious because we do not have the same interests on our roads as those that apply in other countries. It is not logical to say that the needs and interests of the travelling public in Greece are the same as those in Britain. We have different climates, different road construction and so on. For those reasons, it concerns me greatly that EC directives may hamper us in introducing the highest possible safety standards. I have to agree with the Government's conclusion that the correct thing is to bury the directives completely. Even the directive on sideguards would prevent the Government introducing a higher standard, which is what the Government should be looking at.

That is not a cop-out for taking some action against lorries coming to this country. In 1992 we face the prospect of cabotage. We face the prospect of lorries that have been registered elsewhere coming on to British roads. They will use standards introduced for different road systems. We know—the Minister knows this—that there are British companies operating on British roads which have chosen to register themselves in the Netherlands to avoid some of the existing regulations for heavy goods vehicles. That should be unacceptable and we should not allow the European directives to cloud the issue. It is for the Government to ensure that safety is paramount and to see that what is introduced applies not only to national operators but to international operators on British roads.

10.47 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the reasonable approach that he has adopted to limit the excesses of the European Community in this important matter. However, rather than devoting so much of his attention to exempting small vehicles from the mandatory Community proposals, perhaps he would serve us better if he were to do something more than his Department has done in the past to reduce the spray from tyres on United Kingdom vehicles that threaten the lives of so many of us who use the motorways.

The Burton constituency has delighted the world over the years with the excellence of its products. I should mention Marmite, Bovril, Branston pickle, the wonderful beer products—Double Diamond, Bass, White Shield, Marston's Pedigree—the new diggers from JCB, the new tyres from Pirelli, the new building systems from Conder, the new civil engineering schemes from Douglas and the new plastic products from BTR. Therefore, it is no surprise that one of my constituents, Mr. Maurice Goodall, formerly of Barton-under-Needwood and now of Rolleston-on-Dove—two delightful villages in my constituency that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will visit shortly—has invented an anti-spray device that works.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Only this morning, in anticipation of the debate, I travelled past Burton and saw the Bass chimney. As a partial vegetarian, I want my hon. Friend to know that I make an exception for Bovril and that I enjoy the Marmite as well.

Mr. Lawrence

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The trouble is that too many Ministers pass Burton and do not go into it. If they visited it, they would be better able to enjoy the outstanding products that a lifetime of dedicated labour and intelligent, well-intended and progressive management have produced for a wonderful town.

Mr. Maurice Goodall is no crank. He is a legitimate, sensible and experienced inventor. It surprises me that the Government seem persistently to show little interest in his invention. The device for suppressing spray from heavy vehicles is one whose efficiency of 93 per cent. to 98 per cent. is 10 times more effective than the 65 per cent. that is required by the BS AU 200 specification. Geometrical formulae have been used to overcome the damage caused by the wheels of heavy vehicles and the device negotiates obstacles 10 in. high when a vehicle is fully laden. This is the product of research and development that has absorbed no fewer than 40,000 hours during the past 11 years of Mr. Goodall's time.

Does the Government's reaction stem from the effectiveness of current anti-spray devices? As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has said, any motorist travelling along a motorway in bad weather takes his life into his hands when he overtakes heavy vehicles that are churning up so much spray. We can send men to the moon, and we have wonderful devices that deliver messages to us wherever we happen to be in the House, but it seems that we cannot eradicate or reduce the murderous spray generated by heavy vehicles.

It is clear from the comments on the European Community proposals that have been made by the organisations most closely related to this issue that the safety effect of many of the present spray devices leaves much to be desired. The Freight Transport Association states: the equipment for its suppression, either under present British rules or under those which the Commission proposes, has at best a marginal effect. VAG (United Kingdom) Ltd. states: The company suggests that standards developed to meet relevant British regulations have been hastily concocted. It argues that standards of design have been over-emphasised at the expense of standards of performance and that there is no evidence that these British standards have had the effect of significantly reducing spray emissions. Volvo Trucks (Great Britain) Limited says: The Company concludes that further technical work would be advisable before the adoption of any Community rules and that since the bulk of the relevant expertise is British, this should be carried out in this country, with proper consultation with interested parties. It is quite clear from our own experience and the knowledge and experience of various organisations that the present anti-spray devices are not sufficiently effective and efficient to save our lives.

I have been involved with Mr. Goodall for four years, during which time he has been trying to interest the Department in his device. Correspondence has been travelling backwards and forwards and there may have been a meeting or two, but still nothing is done. The matter is now in the hands of Mr. Robert Moreland, who was the Member of the European Parliament for the Staffordshire, East constituency until the last European election, when he was less than fortunate. I have no doubt that he will return to the European Community, where he currently serves on a number of transport committees. Mr. Moreland is doing his best to bring Mr. Goodall's invention to the attention of those who apparently will do something in the European Community.

I propose to hand to my hon. Friend a dossier of documents, which are now slightly out of date but can immediately be updated. It is clear that, so excellent is the tradition of creative, progressive developments in my constituency, so confident can we be when an excellent inventor comes along with an excellent and desirable product, that I can draw the conclusion only that, although the documents have, over the years, been handed to the Department, they have not been brought to the attention of my hon. Friend who, I know, personally considers anything that might contribute to road safety. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking the documents. I hope to hear further from him so that lives can be saved by the excellent invention of my constituent Mr. Goodall.

10.56 pm

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

I welcome the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to the ranks of those hon. Members who want regulation on matters relating to road safety. Had Mr. Maurice Goodall been involved in the invention of seat belts, I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would have paid the glowing tributes that he has this evening. However, I welcome any late converts to regulation on road safety matters.

Mr. Lawrence

The hon. Gentleman will recall that I was not opposed to having seat belts, wearing seat belts or improvements to seat belts. I was opposed only to compulsion.

Mr. Sheerman

I misunderstood. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman not only wanted his constituent's invention to be introduced, but wanted it to be fitted to heavy goods vehicles to protect people driving on roads.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

I say confidentially to the hon. Gentleman that he should lay off my hon. and learned Friend. It is worth recognising that, because of my hon. and learned Friend's relative reticence, we managed to get the child restraint Bill through the House. We may yet have to consider Lords amendments, and I do not want to do anything that might in any way provoke my hon. and learned Friend to think that fluoride has anything to do with that Bill.

Mr. Sheerman

I think that both the Minister and the hon. and learned Gentleman understand that my comments were light badinage.

We are discussing a serious matter that has been tucked away late in our proceedings. I campaigned vigorously for anti-spray and anti-splash devices to be fitted to heavy goods vehicles because of the large number of accidents resulting in death and serious injury to innocent people. It always surprises me that the consumers on motorways and other roads have not been more vociferous or active about the conditions that they put up with when travelling. It must be unique for me to agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), but it is high time that there was effective regulation of vehicles that cause dangerous splash and spray.

I was part of a successful campaign to introduce regulations on splash and spray that were as good as we could achieve at that time. The nature of research means that we have to accept the technical device that is effective at that time. Science and technology always move on. I am suspicious of lobbies and spokesmen for different industry groups who say, "Don't introduce this standard; something is coming over the horizon that will be 100 per cent. perfect and wonderful." If a splash or spray device is produced that is 40 or 60 per cent. effective, let us have it and wait for the 100 per cent. to follow, and then go for a higher standard in the fullness of time.

I am always suspicious of the Road Haulage Association Ltd. and similar organisations, whose common denominator seems to be opposition to anything that will cost their members a few pennies or a few pounds. I do not say that in a narrow, nationalistic sense because I have spoken—and I must declare this interest—for Monsanto in the United States about the British experience and about how effective it had been in reducing splash and spray. That was something on which we showed the way in this country, so I am sad at the present situation.

Three years ago, we had Road Safety Year, which was introduced by the European Commission. I am a late convert to Europeanism. For many years I campaigned against the Common Market, although later I was convinced that it was something we had to accept. Even so, I get rather cross when I see this kind of directive, which brings everything down to the lowest common denominator. We have lost the opportunity for countries to lead the way and for the best practice to be adopted. This directive is permissive and a cop-out. It allows countries which want a higher standard to stay with it and introduce one, and others to opt out. That is a sad state of affairs, when the best practice is the thing to aim for.

One question the Minister has not answered—it is an aspect on which he has not campaigned vigorously enough—is what is to be done about those vehicles which arrive at our Channel ports and drive on British roads, causing as much splash, spray and danger as British vehicles. They will be largely unregulated. They may come from dry countries such as Spain and Greece, which do not see it as being in their short-term interest to introduce appropriate measures. However, when vehicles from those countries reach German, French and British roads, which are wetter, they ought to be regulated in the same way as other safety regulations are applied to foreign vehicles travelling on our roads.

Year after year, the number of non-British European vehicles travelling on British motorways increases. Hon. Members can see that for themselves as they drive to and from their constituencies. To have rules and regulations covering only British heavy goods vehicles is plainly daft. I refer to Norfolk Line and to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) about sideguards. He made only one slip on the subject of splash and spray, and perhaps that was because he was briefed by different people. In terms of splash and spray, we must acknowledge that it is not good enough to accept vehicles from other countries entering Britain and causing a great deal of damage to citizens driving on our roads.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

My hon. Friend admits that he is a late convert to the European dream—although I still regard it as being a pipedream rather than an ideal. Nevertheless, the danger of the European directive in being permissive is exactly as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend. It will not only allow vehicles from other European countries to enter Britain but will also make it impossible for the Government to do anything to make them conform to the British standard. The directive will allow foreign vehicles to operate at the lower standard.

Mr. Sheerman

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was merely going to say that he was too gentlemanly to mention that Norfolk Line and others are registering their fleets in other countries to evade simple safety regulations that do not cost all that much money.

It was part of European Road Safety Year to act on those two matters, and it is sad for future campaigns that none of the objectives of Road Safety Year are to be achieved, because it means that the European Commission and the Community cannot deliver. It is a kind of opt-out Community. As my hon. Friend says, what we need is best practice in the Community, so that we are all protected evenly across all countries.

I had the misfortune to travel from Felixstowe to Bury St. Edmunds. The experience of driving in wet weather on that road, where the percentage of foreign vehicles is very high, shows in grim and graphic detail the problems of the permissive directive approach.

I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about side underruns, and about the need to grasp the nettle of front underruns. Many members of the British public do not understand that front underruns are the kind with which most vehicles are involved in accidents, and we must take some action on them.

I regret the regulations. We should not reach a stage at which the European Community merely says that there are good standards achievable on the basis of the technology that we have now. That may be the technology that the constituent of the hon. and learned Member for Burton is about to introduce, but whatever it is, it should be for all member states.

11.6 pm

Mr. Tony Speller (Devon, North)

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) can be brief at greater length than any other hon. Member who has contributed to the debate. I shall seek to be even briefer.

First, let me ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to try to avoid responsibility outside the motor industry. It is far too easy to do what we all do rather glibly and blame the road haulier and the designer. We should also think about the roads. Many parts of the country have no motorways and never will have, but they do have quite long, wide roads, and the water sweeping across them makes them more dangerous than motorways.

Much of the problem relates to road design—to windbreaks and lightbreaks. It is too easy to blame the heavy lorry and the motorway. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the side wind, which is just as important. It is patent to anyone who drives. as I frequently do, along 50 miles of rather poor west country road—shortly to be improved by the link road to Barnstaple—and then on to the M5 and the M4, that side winds and poor visibility cause equal danger on the bad road.

Every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to "passing" when they mean overtaking. There is frequently a danger of approaching a vehicle and then going past it through a sheet of water, possibly finding some fool coming up behind the lorry and seeking to overtake. The great mistake is always to blame the awful juggernaut or road haulier on the wet motorway. I suspect that nothing in aerodynamics will ever stop spray from coming up on a wet road when a fast vehicle is going along it, whatever the shape of that vehicle. As more wide but single carriageway roads are built, there is an increasing danger of the hard cross wind on exposed parts.

I shall say no more except to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his great concern about road safety. It is always a pleasure to listen to what he says, even if our constituents—particularly road hauliers—do not always agree.

11.10 pm

Mr. Ian Mills (Meriden)

The problem is complex; the solution should be easy. I spent 20 years as a tyre designer and part of the problem is the design of the tyre. I still have a strong interest in tyres and in roads, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows. Part of the problem is that roads are not porous. Water does not disappear down into roads; it goes out at the sides. Roads have to be properly drained. We have to find a solution in the design of both concrete and asphalt roads, as well as anti-spray devices.

Having read the European directive, I am appalled to see that under category II(1) it says that devices exist to eliminate spray, and that Both types of material have been developed over the last few years in Europe and elsewhere and are being produced by at least ten or more manufacturers. I was present at least 10 years ago—if not 15 or 20 years ago—when Monsanto and others came up with what they called the plastic grass solution and the rubber mat solution. The solution has been available in various forms for over 10 years. All this talk about technicalities really makes me wild. My constituency includes the M42 and the M6—right in the heart of England—and I travel those motorways often. However, I still do not see any beneficial results from what we have done as a Government in seeking to ensure that heavy goods vehicles create less spray. I still have many constituents saying to me, "You said 10 or 20 years ago that the technical solution was there. What are you going to do about it?" The answer is not in this directive.

The Minister should use his able powers of persuasion, which he has done on many other items of road safety, to achieve progress. To discuss the technicalities of this matter is all very well but there should be an easy solution whereby we can equip heavy goods vehicles with simple devices, which will not cost the operators a tremendous amount of money. If the simple devices are judged not to be right under the appropriate British standard, at least something is better than nothing.

I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and I encourage his inventor to put forward his ideas. Surely after all this time Europe should be able to come to a solution. If foreign vehicles are creating the problem, I ask the Minister to ensure that they will achieve the standards that we need.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

I am grateful to the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It is an important issue and everyone who uses the roads when wet knows of the dangers that spray can create.

I pick up one point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). If a heavy lorry is travelling along a motorway or a high-quality dual carriageway trunk road at, say, 60 miles an hour and throwing up a lot of spray, there is a sensible safe option to other motorists, which is not to try to overtake it. There is no reason why every domestic car driver should think that it is their duty to overtake every heavy goods vehicle, whether in wet or dry weather. I often think that we regard overtaking an HGV as a challenge and we somehow suffer in esteem if we do not always succeed in overtaking it.

There has been a significant advance in vehicles with spray suppression. Much of this debate has been concerned with spray suppression, because the sideguard issue, which is basic protection for pedestrians and cyclists, in non-controversial. The question whether they are rounded sideguards or flat sideguards is not enormously important. However, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr.Lloyd) mentioned, the height can be important. I will write to him on that matter and place a copy in the Library.

The issue of front underrun guards will be discussed in the House in the future. The Transport and Road Research laboratory is acknowledged all around the world as one of the leaders in virtually every subject that it takes up. Its work does show that energy-absorbing front underrun guards can help to save many of the lives presently lost in the approximately 250 serious crashes a year against the front of heavy goods vehicles.

We are basically considering spray suppression in the debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has raised the question of his constituent, the inventor, M r. Maurice Goodall. As well as handing me the dossier that my hon. and learned Friend has with him, it may be appropriate if I ask the Department to consider an up-to-date submission from Mr. Goodall. I know that my hon. and learned Friend will facilitate that and I am grateful to him for raising that issue. The whole political process goes from one person's private experience, publicly expressed—people often have to be persistent—which is then adopted by the overwhelming minority, which is likely to include the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I have paid tribute to the work of the parliamentary advisory committee and I pay tribute also to the hon. Gentleman as an individual.

I think that I can overcome some of the insults that were offered up by the hon. Member for Stretford. Sometimes I am accused of being power-crazed and sometimes of being powerless. I think that I work in good partnership with the knowledgeable people in the Department of Transport and in Parliament. Between us we have managed to create what the European Road Safety Year in 1986 was designed for—a cut in road accidents and road casualties.

In the year after European Road Safety Year, we saw a 10 per cent. cut in the casualty rate in Britain, which has left us one of the top four countries, with Japan, Norway and Sweden. It is important that the United Kingdom is up there. It is not coincidental that we are the country that brought in spray suppression regulations. I hope that other countries will follow us.

However, we want to allow ourselves the freedom to develop more effective measures. The House will be interested to know that we are in the final stages of research into whole vehicle testing on spray suppression. As I said earlier, the aerodynamics matter as much as the actual water or mist catching behind the axles and wheels. When we can move forward, we shall be able to see how other countries react. My suspicion is that in the same way that the Commission has modelled the draft directive on the British regulations, when we get to whole vehicle testing, it will be prepared to forward with a draft directive which is likely to be acceptable to others.

The hon. Member for Stretford raised the question of publishing and demonstrating the effectiveness of spray suppression. It would be sensible if we laid on a demonstration—not just for hon. Members who are interested, but for the media. Many operators do not understand why Parliament wants spray suppressed. Enough horrifying crashes and collisions have been linked to the reduction in visibility that is suffered, especially by HGV drivers. Spray is not just a problem for those behind who are trying to look forward; it is a problem for those sitting in the driver's cab and trying to look back.

It might be appropriate if I pay a tribute to British Road Services. I spent today in the BRS midland region in Nottingham and Birmingham, looking at vehicle maintenance. It is worth remembering that every HGV and trailer in this country is maintained. I also looked at driver training. If more operators trained their drivers as BRS does, and maintained their vehicles as BRS does, we should see fewer dangers on the roads and more spray suppression devices installed and maintained.

The debate has been useful

Mr. Tony Lloyd

I should like the Minister to address one point even if he does not answer it now. With 1992 aproaching and with the prospects that hon. Members of all parties have already put to the Minister of British roads being flooded, or at least entered, by Spanish and Portuguese drivers, how will the directives apply if, as the Government want, they are permissive? Will my fears be proved accurate and will Spanish lorries, for example, coming on to Britain's roads be protected by the directive and allowed here without adequate spray suppression devices?

Mr. Bottomley

One reason why, in my guess—it is no more than that—we shall not get a directive is that the draft directive cannot be accepted by most European countries. If the Commission's draft directive on spray is not accepted, we have the opportunity to go forward with our own work. It might be possible for the Commission to come forward with a directive that would receive unanimous support even as a permissive directive, which is the best way of protecting ourselves. As the House knows, we do not have the opportunity of putting requirements on international hauliers unless there is a directive which is either mandatory on all European Community hauliers or is permissive but has been adopted by European nations. It is important to work towards what is practicable and demonstrably cost-effective. In that way we shall get the type of protection that the hon. Member for Stretford and I seek.

The debate has shown that the motion demonstrates the mood of the House. I am grateful to each hon. Gentleman who has spoken and I am glad that this issue does not arouse any unnecessary party prejudice. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Huddersfield has joined his leader in welcoming our membership of the Common Market and let us milk that for what it is worth.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8284/87 on spray suppression devices and lateral protection (sideguards) for certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers; and endorses the Government's objectives of securing Community arrangements which would not require more stringent standards than those required in the United Kingdom at present, and amendment of the proposed Directive on spray suppression so as to make its application, like the proposed Directive on sideguards, permissive rather than mandatory, and restricted in scope to the same categories of vehicles as are covered by the existing United Kingdom Regulations.