§ 2.45 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended to continue the speed limit restriction across Mitcham Common, on the Mitcham—Croydon road and on the Edinburgh—Queensferry road between Blackball and Cramond Bridge.]
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADMy Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of Transport is of opinion that the 30 m.p.h. speed restriction on the Mitcham — Croydon road through Mitcham Common should be maintained. This Common is a recreation ground which attracts many cyclists and pedestrians; moreover, what is more important to my mind, it is also a playground for large numbers of children. With regard to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, my honourable friend is at the moment considering whether or not there is adequate justification for maintaining the speed limit now in force on the Edinburgh—Queensferry Road.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, while thank-the noble Earl for his answer with reference to the road in Scotland, I should like to ask him a further question concerning the road across Mitcham Common. Is the noble Earl aware that there is a length of about one and a half or two miles of this road that has only one road intersection, that there is only one house within a hundred yards of the road anywhere along its whole length, and that nobody can approach the road without being in full view of the traffic using it over a distance of 200 or 300 yards? I would also draw his attention to the Report of the London Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee which, at page 9, makes this statement:
A speed limit should never be imposed unless there is clear justification for it. The effectiveness of a speed limit depends primarily 762 on the willing co-operation of drivers. If a speed limit is imposed without justification drivers tend to disregard it and this brings the whole system of speed limits into disrepute.May I ask the noble Earl whether he will reconsider the stretch of road referred to in the light of the London Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee's comment?
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADMy Lords, I am well aware of the nature of this road, and I cannot say that I altogether agree with what has just fallen from the noble Earl. He has spoken, if I understood him aright, of the clear visibility on this road, but I have never noticed, in my experience of driving, that clear visibility has ever deterred pedestrians, motorists, cyclists or children from committing acts of suicidal folly. With regard to the quotation which the noble Earl has just read out, I am in full agreement him and, were I a motorist contemplating crossing this particular piece of road, I should willingly obey the speed limit—and I will tell him why. In the first place, the vehicular traffic which this road carries is extremely heavy. The rate is about 430 vehicles an hour, rising, I believe, to about 800 vehicles an hour in the peak period. The pedestrian and cycle traffic is also substantial, especially of course at weekends, at holiday times and in the summer evenings. As I said before—and this is one of my most important points—Mitcham Common serves as an open space and a recreation centre for the densely populated areas which surround it. Therefore, it has many features of a park in a residential area. It is true that this section of the road is in open country, and that there are no buildings, but because of the number of pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles and children using Mitcham Common, the traffic conditions are, in the opinion of my honourable friend, comparable to those in a built-up area. He has, therefore, decided that the speed limit is necessary.
There is perhaps one other point that I should add and that is that I am informed that the distance of road in question is slightly over one mile. If, as the police believe and as we believe, the lives of pedestrians, cyclists and, above all, of children can be saved, we do not think that to ask the motorist to throttle down to 30 m.p.h. for just over one mile 763 is imposing upon him an intolerable hardship. With regard to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, that affecting the road in Scotland, I know the past history of the various experiments which were made in attempting to de-restrict this road, and I am also aware of the attitude adopted by the Edinburgh Council towards those experiments. But with the noble Earl's permission, I would much prefer not to delve too deeply into the details of the past, because, as I pointed out just now, the matter is again sub judice, and it may well be that this time the noble Earl will get what he wants. I therefore ask him, rather earnestly, to accept my assurance that my right honourable friend is at present considering whether or not it is justifiable to maintain a speed limit on this road, and I assure the noble Earl that, as soon as a decision is taken about the matter, the House will be informed.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, while we are deeply interested in the opinion on traffic questions of the noble Earl the Lord in Waiting, may I ask the acting Leader of the House why the Minister who is in charge of this Department is not present to answer such an important Question?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON)Because he is otherwise engaged and has a most admirable substitute. I well remember that when the noble Viscount was an Under-Secretary he was only too glad to show off his eloquence.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI am indebted to the noble Viscount for what we in this House call a tribute. But I am raising a Parliamentary point. The last time this Minister was required here he was dining with the Norwegian Ambassador, and this time he is what is called "otherwise engaged." I think the least that could be done, out of respect for your Lordships' House, is that Ministers who are responsible for these matters should come and answer Questions when they are put in your Lordships' House.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONIt was once said to the noble Viscount in another place that he must not engender more heat than he can contain. He is well 764 aware that it has been an invariable custom in this House, as in another place, that Under-Secretaries of State or their representatives here, those who stand in the same position in this House. Lords in Waiting, should from time to time answer Questions. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, is offering no discourtesy to the House. I recollect that when a point was raised the other day the noble Lord, who has an enormous field of activity to cover (he has to deal with three industries), was here to answer, and he has been regularly present when matters arise in debate. I am sure the noble Viscount opposite will not wish to press his point unduly.