HC Deb 22 April 1996 vol 276 cc11-2
9. Mr. Robathan

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the advantages of a statutory 20 mph limit in urban residential areas. [24724]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)

Properly constructed 20 mph zones, with "self-enforcing" speed-reducing features such as road humps, have reduced casualties by 56 per cent., and child casualties by 74 per cent., on average.

Mr. Robathan

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He will already be aware that the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit is desirable in reducing danger, especially the danger to children playing in the streets. Is he also aware that a recent study has shown that both fuel consumption and vehicle emissions are also reduced by a lower speed limit? Will he therefore look towards replacing the 30 mph speed limit more generally in residential roads, with a standard 20 mph speed limit that might encourage us all to drive a little more slowly and safely?

Mr. Norris

I understand the logic behind my hon. Friend's point. There is all-party agreement that we have seen the value of 20 mph speed limit zones, about 250 of which are now in place, but, from experience, I am sure that the key to limiting speed is setting the limit at a sensible level that is appropriate to the surrounding conditions. For example, when it is patently obvious that a 20 mph speed limit could safely be exceeded, such a limit is likely to lead to more abuse of the system and less regard for the sensible levels at which speed limits are normally set. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I greatly welcome his support for the concept, but I believe that the way in which we are introducing a lower speed limit—in selected areas in which it will make a real difference—is right.

Mr. Flynn

Although the Government and all the others responsible deserve congratulation on the considerable reduction in the number of fatal accidents, especially those involving children, the Minister knows that a car, even if travelling at 20 mph, will fatally injure a child if it is fitted with a bull bar. After hearing representations from his own side, has he changed his mind about my Bull Bars (Prohibition) Bill? Will he now allow it to go through Parliament? Can he tell us when his favourite alternative to that Bill, the European ban, is likely to be enacted, and what percentage of bull bars it will remove?

Mr. Norris

I have seldom encountered an exercise more cynical than that mounted by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Bill, the contents of which, as I suspect he knew perfectly well, were already entirely covered by the Road Traffic Act 1988. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reiterate the fact that I entirely share his view on the principle that aggressive bull bars are not only unnecessary but should be banned. The hon. Gentleman will know that I reported to the House when I had received some proposed wording from the Commission for amending the external projections directive—and that I look forward to being able to agree a suitable form of words with the Commission in the near future, and to ensuring that that is implemented as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the right way to proceed, rather than trying to use spurious legislation that would add nothing whatever to the United Kingdom's ability to make the change that both he and I wish to bring about.