§ LORD RATHCREEDAN had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to take any steps further to limit the speed and weight of present-day traffic, more especially upon second and third-grade roads, which are now most unfairly starved to the detriment of the ratepayers: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Question on the Paper because I think the time has arrived when the Government should take into consideration the question of the roads of this country, both as to their suitability to carry the traffic which they are now called upon to bear and as to 905 the adaptability of the vehicles which now pass over these roads. The policy of the Government is a large expenditure, between £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, upon the main roads and certain of the great arterial roads leading to the Metropolis. As regards the latter point I make no criticism, because more than twenty years ago, in a letter to The Times, I defended the construction of these main arteries and I was supported in my contention by no less an authority than the noble Earl, the Earl of Balfour. But my contention is that whereas much is done for the main roads, it is at the expense of the second-grade roads that feed the main roads, and also of the third-grade roads.
§ How comes it that the second-grade and third-grade roads are in the deplorable state in which we find them at present in many parts of the country? There are many reasons, but the main reason is that the local authorities are unable to exercise powers of transferring certain heavy traffic for which these roads are unsuited or of closing certain portions of the roads. Possibly the noble Viscount who will reply to me from the Front Bench will draw my attention to subsection (4) of Section 7 of the Roads Act, 1920, which gives this very power to the local authorities. But the local authorities have not been able to put this section into operation, not only on account of the various difficulties with which it is surrounded but also on account of the expense. Some few years ago a local authority attempted to put the section into operation at a cost of some £2,000, and, as a result, other local authorities have refrained from doing anything of the kind, contenting themselves with doing the best they can for the roads under their control with the amount of money placed at their disposal.
§ Let me give an illustration of what occurs. A short time ago a certain road, about a mile and a half in length, had become broken up owing to the passage of a heavy motor omnibus. The local authorities would have liked to divert the route. The proprietors of the omnibus said that the route was unprofitable and that the loss to them would be something like 5s. Per week in fares. But the road had to be reconstructed at a cost of £5,000, one-half of which fell upon the ratepayers. Thus the ratepayers in that locality were paying many pounds perweek 906 in order that the omnibus proprietor might make some 5s. a week. It may be asked how the road came to be in this condition. A road gets into this condition because these heavy vehicles, averaging anything between five and ten tons in weight, are, according to the evidence of surveyors throughout the country—and upon this question they are unanimous—faulty in mechanical construction.
§ It is true that when they are fully loaded and moving at a slow rate they do comparatively little damage, but when, towards the end of their journey, having delivered most of their passengers, they are comparatively empty and are trying to make up speed, the tail end of the vehicle, if I may use that expression, goes bump, bump, upon these lightly built roads and beats them into what is known technically as pot holes. If these pot holes could be treated without delay in the proper way by being filled up with tar metalling, and then if the road were tar sprayed in order to bind the whole surface together, comparatively little damage would be done, but the local authorities cannot do this because tar-spraying is a very expensive matter and they receive only one-quarter of the grant for this purpose.
§ There is another direction in which matters might be improved. If these vehicles were compelled to carry pneumatic or semi-pneumatic tyres there would be a great improvement. It will be said that this would occasionally cause some delay. That is, I believe, the only possible objection. Pneumatic tyres might be costly, but if sufficient time were given for the old tyres to wear out and the proprietors were only then required to put on new tyres of a stated pattern no great damage would be done to the owners of these omnibuses. It may be urged that eventually the expense would come upon the general public, that the consumer always pays. That is quite true, but surely it would be better that some infinitesimal charge should come back to the consumer than that the ratepayers, who already pay so large a proportion of the expense, should be compelled to make it good.
§ Let me give another illustration of what takes place in consequence of weight being placed upon roads that are unfit to carry 907 it. In the district in which I live, the Chiltern Hills, there are numerous lightly-built, narrow and tortuous roads and considerable steep ascents and descents. In one place, where about half a mile of road had just been reconstructed and was in good repair, the following day a large tractor drawing a couple of trailers went down that half mile of road and practically broke it up. There was a pit at the bottom of the hill from which heavy ballast was being taken, and it suited the proprietors to cart it up this hill rather than take an alternative road of some three quarters of a mile that was at their disposal. As a result, in the space of three weeks, the road had more taken out of it than would have been taken out of it in as many months had conditions as to weight and rate of speed been different.
§ Now let me pass on to the question of speed. Again, I may be told from the Front Bench that the speed of these vehicles is limited to twelve miles per hour. That is perfectly true, but they not infrequently, on certain stretches of road, go at the rate of twenty and twenty-four miles per hour. I recently had a letter from the experienced chairman of an important road board. He stated that if the vehicles never exceeded a speed of twelve miles an hour the cost of upkeep of the roads in his district would be one quarter of what it is now. That is a very bold statement. It is frequently said that the public have the matter in their own hands and that the police and the magistrates deal with this question. The police force in this country performs its difficult duties, which call for so much tact, extremely well, but I venture to assert that if the police force of this country were quadrupled they could not succeed in apprehending one in a hundred cases of vehicles exceeding the speed limit. Perhaps some noble Lords present may have been familiar in days gone by with the King's Regulations for the Army in which there is a paragraph concerning discipline which points out that it is not the severity, but the certainty of punishment which acts as a deterrent from crime. Naturally drivers, knowing the chances are a hundred to one in their favour, take the risk. Then it is urged that the police are not backed up by the magistrates. I can only speak for the Bench on which I sit. As a rule, when 908 we know that the driver of the vehicle is in the employ of a rich firm, who will presumably pay his fine, we invariably impose a very heavy fine indeed, but, on the other hand, where we know that the driver is a poor man or in the employ of a poor firm, and that in all probability he will have to pay the fine himself, as a matter of expediency we consider the possibility of throwing the man and his family upon the rates, and also common humanity, and impose only a small fine.
§ It may be asked: What is the remedy for this excessive speed? I have no remedy to offer. I leave that with the Government. But if I am asked why it is that the speed limit is invariably exceeded, it is because men in business are compelled, in self defence, to exact from their drivers the passing-over of a certain route within a given time, or the delivery of a certain number of parcels or packages within a certain time. The drivers are frequently delayed by customers en. route, and again, in certain parts of the country, on certain days, owing to their having to pass through market towns or other places where there is a glut of traffic, they are obliged to make up for loss of speed when they come to a stretch of road where they can do so.
§ There is one more point in close connection with the roads that I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice. On many of these narrow roads, which were never built for the traffic that they now have to carry, there is a considerable amount of cottage property, and this heavy traffic, going along those roads, particularly on certain soils and in certain states of weather, shake the foundations of the cottages, cause fissures in the walls, loosen frames and chimney-pots, and do other damage, and the unfortunate owner, who already has to pay heavily in rates for the roads, is having his cottage property destroyed at the same time. I do not think that any noble Lord will deny that that is a great grievance to property owners. It is a great grievance, particularly at a time when certain Acts with regard to small property are being extended for a number of years, with the result that many of us who, from patriotism or humanity in many cases, allowed these cottages to pass into the hands of tenants whom we did not want during the war, and now require these cottages for our own servants, 909 are unable to regain possession because it is well known that in most places it is impossible to furnish alternative accommodation. So we are hit in both ways.
§ There is one other matter which I would like to bring to your Lordships notice, and that is the question of the railways in conjunction with the roads. In recent years much of the heavy goods traffic formerly taken by the railways has been carried by the roads, and particularly the main roads of the country, which cost between £3,000 and £10,000 per mile for construction only. A considerable amount of that traffic, which is now borne by the main roads at great expense to the ratepayers, might be put back upon the railways by the construction of containers for certain classes of goods. That has already been done in the case of furniture vans; and by means of simple mechanical contrivances, and by good will on the part of the traders of this country, and by incentives in the case of the railways, much of the traffic which is now upon the roads might be re-transferred to the railways.
§ My speech has travelled over wide grounds, and may I be permitted for a few moments to summarise what I have said? My suggestion is that greater power should be given to local surveyors, under the authority of their district councils, to divert heavy traffic from roads unsuitable for the carriage of that traffic; that an increase should be given as regards the tar-spraying grant to the local authorities; that every encouragement should be given to the railways, on the one hand, and to the traders of the country, on the other, to get back some of the heavy traffic from the roads to the railways. I can imagine that whoever replies from the Front Bench will say that this is a very large subject dealing with the whole of the roads of the country, and one in which some hundreds of millions of money is concerned. I concur. Therefore I ask the Government to set up a committee of experts on roads, railways, mechanical construction of heavy vehicles, and to add to these a certain number of ratepayers' representatives and a certain number of the representatives of trade. I consider that such a committee would be able to furnish a vast amount of valuable knowledge to the Government. Finally, let me say that, this is a great 910 national question and has nothing whatever to do with Party in any sense of the word, and that there is no reason why any noble Lord, sitting in any part of this House, should not support me in the Division Lobby on this matter. I beg to move.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)My Lords, the noble Lord who has raised this Question has travelled over so many roads in the course of his speech that perhaps he will not mind if I confine myself to one or two of the more high-class, or classified, roads, instead of dealing with all the unclassified roads in the country. He has told us that, I think twenty years ago, he was a great pioneer of arterial roads, but if he has followed the road controversy during the last twenty years he knows that two very important limits on speed have been, and are being, constantly broken. One is the twenty-mile speed limit for light motors and the other is the twelve-mile speed limit for heavier motors. He has asked me a rather large Question, but he seemed to suggest not so much objection to the speed limits as to the enforcement of them. He has already complained of the charge for roads, both rates and taxes, hut he wants also to increase the number of police—which, although an efficient, is not a very cheap body--otherwise, I do not quite see how he can enforce these rules.
I may tell him that it is the intention of the Government as soon as possible to bring forward a Road Vehicle Consolidation and Amendment Bill because nearly all our rules and regulations about speed on roads, and so on, date from the years 1903 and 1904 when the motor car was a very different vehicle than what it is now. There has been no increase, I understand, from the max mum permissible axle weights or speeds since 1904, and in the interval there has been an immense improvement in the tyres and springs fitted to motor vehicles and in the construction of roads. This Bill will be based very largely on the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Bond Vehicles issued in March, 1922. I understand that their recommendations follow the principles of differentiation as regards the maximum permissible speeds between heavy motor cars fitted with 911 different types of tyres—namely, pneumatic, resilient and non-resilient.—and of different unladen weights, and whether drawing a trailer or not. By this means an inducement will be offered to the use of types of vehicles which do the least damage to roads.
The other point which the noble Lord suggested was that there should be special limitations imposed in the case of second and third-grade roads. I suppose he meant unclassified roads. I am advised that this suggestion cannot be carried out. The maximum speed, the unladen weight and the front and back axle weights of heavy motor cars are, by law, painted on the vehicle. You could not have special limits for Class I and Class II roads and other limits for other roads. Laden vehicles do not usually confine their journeys to Class I and Class II roads and as the driver would not be able to alter his load in passing from a Class I road to an unclassified road, the effect would be that you would have weight limits for unclassified roads stereotyped generally and that, of course, would be an impossible thing to do.
I will not call your Lordships' attention to the particular section, which the noble Lord quoted so correctly, relating to the powers of the local authorities and public inquiries, but I do not think he laid sufficient stress upon it, because under this section orders have been made during the last four years restricting the use of heavy motor vehicles on a large number of highways and bridges throughout the country, on the application of the county boroughs or county councils concerned. In some cases the order prohibits the use of the highway by locomotives and by heavy motor cars, or by passenger-carrying vehicles with a seating capacity for more than fourteen passengers, other than the driver. A great many regulations of that kind have been made, so I do not think the noble Lord really gives sufficient weight to what has been done under that section.
§ LORD RATHCREEDANIt is the excess of cost.
§ VISCOUNT PEELTo whom?
§ LOUD RATHCREEDANTo the ratepayer.
§ VISCOUNT PEELOf holding these inquiries?
§ LORD RATHCREEDANYes.
§ VISCOUNT PEELWhatever the cost may be I only want to suggest to the noble Lord that a great deal has been done to make orders under these particular Regulations. The last point he raised was the question of not dealing quite fairly and generously with the unclassified roads. He knows of the portions of 25 and 50 per cent. respectively received by Class I and Class II roads, and these grants, which are called classification grants, form by far the heaviest call upon the Road Fund. For this financial year they amount to £9,500,000 out of a net revenue of about £15,500,000. The county councils of England and Wales receive over £5,500,000 in classification grants, which indirectly provide a considerable relief to the county rates, to which the rural districts contribute. The rural district councils also receive directly about £400,000 annually in classification grants.
The noble Lord knows very well that a great many complaints have been made on the lines that we have heard this evening, pressing for the making of definite grants towards the maintenance of non-classified roads on the basis of 10 per cent. of the approved cost. It has been very difficult to adopt this suggestion, because of the tremendous charge on the Fund—which is contributed by the motorists themselves—for the reconstruction of existing Class I and Class II roads, and the construction of roads and bridges. Indeed, the grant of money to these particular roads would really run counter to the general principles governing the distribution of the Fund, which is that the money should be expended on the maintenance and improvement of roads bearing a considerable amount of through traffic, as distinguished from traffic of purely local origin. The Road Fund is not an institution devised solely for the purpose of relieving local rates.
During the last two years sums amounting to £3,750,000 have been specially allocated from the Road Fund for the improvement of important roads in rural areas. That policy was initiated two years ago, and these grants are given on two principles. One is to enable Class I and Class II district roads to be brought up to main road standard, so that they may be taken over by the county authorities 913 as county main roads. The second is to enable the more important district roads which are not in Class I or Class II to be reconstructed and made fit for the traffic passing over them, particularly those district roads which carry heavy local omnibus traffic.
The policy of pressing for Class I and Class II roads to be brought up to main road standard and taken over by the county authorities is sound on general grounds, and it has the advantage of spreading the charge for roads over the rather wider area of the county councils, and so relieving the rural rates. A great many of these rural district authorities have been attempting for years to maintain their more important roads with unsuitable materials, simply because they could not face the large capital expenditure of reconstructing them, and the object of these grants now being made is to enable them to reconstruct them in a better and stronger manner. I understand that the Minister of Transport hopes that larger provision will be made for this purpose in the financial year 1925–1926. In that way, indirectly perhaps, the complaints which have been made this evening will, to some extent, be met.
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, the Question on the Paper is a serious one, but the noble Viscount, although his reply was somewhat ample, really did not very fully deal with it. What the noble Lord asked was whether steps will be taken further to limit the speed and weight of present-day traffic. What you want is not so much further to limit the speed, at any rate so far as enactment is concerned, but to enforce the limitation of speed. The noble Lord spoke as if there was no difference between the excessive speed-limit of a light motor car and of a heavy vehicle. There is all the difference in the world. The light motor car which exceeds the speed limit may, or may not, cause danger to the public—I do not think it does—but, at all events, it causes practically no damage to modern roads. But when you get these terrible vehicles, weighing from three to seven tons, bumping and dancing over the roads at twenty miles an hour, the damage they do is incalculable. I am very much opposed to waste, and public money is being wasted by repairing roads only in order that they may be broken up by these vehicles. It is really a very serious 914 question, and I think something ought to be done to limit these vehicles to their statutory speed of twelve miles an hour.
The noble Viscount seems to think that extra police would be expensive. The cost of extra police, if they laid themselves out to entrap these vehicles, would be far more than repaid by the fines collected, and the local rates would be saved an enormous proportion of their present expenditure. This waste of public money that is now going on is remediable without any fresh legislation, and I hope the Government will not disregard that aspect of the matter.
§ LORD RATHCREEDANMy Lords, I fully acknowledge that light motor traffic of under 20 horse power does no damage whatever, and it must be remembered that it is the motorists who supply the greater part of the money for the roads. But I contend, and all surveyors in the country admit, that a heavy motor omnibus going over one of these lightly-built roads, especially when the weather is bad, will do more damage in one day than the cost of the licence of one of these vehicles for a whole year would pay for—that is, between £60 and £70. I gave your Lordships an instance of a road on which there was a gravel pit at the bottom of a steep hill. That road was broken up in some three weeks. There was an alternative route some three-quarters of a mile round and less steep, which might have been used by these vehicles if only the local authority had had power to permit it.
I agree with what the noble Lord opposite has said. If a Bill is going to be introduced and various improvements made in different directions, I will reserve myself until then so as to see what the Government is going to do. I might mention, with regard to speed, that I specially said I had no panacea to offer; it was for the Government to see that the speed was regulated. I know of no way of keeping it down to twelve miles, and I consider that the police on the one hand and the magistrates on the other do the best they can in the circumstances.
§ VISCOUNT PEELThe noble Lord does not ask for an increase in the police?
§ LORD RATHCREEDANNo.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.