HL Deb 28 January 1953 vol 180 cc66-88

4.51 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the law so as to permit a uniform speed limit: for all ordinary goods-carrying vehicles, thus enabling manufacturers to design and produce vehicles for export competitive in price with those produced by other countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that in rising to move this Motion I shall not be out of order in offering a word of congratulation to the noble Earl who has just sat down on the excellent speech he has made. If I may say so, I liked his forthright manner, and I congratulate him sincerely. I do not suppose that any noble Lord in this House would dissent from me if I said that the greatest problem facing this country to-day is to increase its export trade. There is no magic wand which will achieve this. If the noble Lord the Secretary of State and his colleagues in. the Cabinet had a magic wand to wave and thus were able to solve this problem overnight in one way or another, they would do it. But the Secretary of State knows as well as I do that our exports can be increased only by a little here and a little there; there is no way in which the Government can hope to increase our exports by 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. overnight. I wonder whether, in all the discussions which those of us who are interested have had, we have not paid too much attention to incentives and not enough to disincentives. If we could remove the disincentives from our manufacturers, we might be able to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer a good many headaches caused through trying to think of monetary incentives. But I do not believe many people in this country ever realise the diverse effect of taxes upon our industrial economy and how taxation influences our products, their design and their markets.

There is no better example of this than the motor industry. I do not think it necessary for me to declare any interest in the motor industry. I used to have a great interest, but my interest now is more academic. This is an industry which has done a greater job for the exports of this country over the last six years than has any other industry—and this in spite of the disincentives it has had. I remember that in one of the first speeches I made in your Lordships' House I made an appeal for the abolition of the horse-power tax, which was cutting our throats in the export market. After a great deal of argument we secured the abolition of the horse-power tax, and freed our designers to design vehicles to compete in the export markets of the world. But before those designs were off the drawing board, some bright individual thought of increasing the petrol tax—a tax which is slowly but surely driving us back to the position in which we were before, under the horse-power tax. It is a position in which manufacturers have to produce a multiplicity of models, because petrol is so high in price. The smaller the weight the greater the economy: would any of your Lordships have believed that that position could arise again? And soon, if petrol increases in price further, our manufacturers will be forced back to a smaller motor car and to the multiplicity of models that we swore we would do away with in order to free manufacturers to compete in the markets of the world. That is the general effect.

Take the particular effect of the vehicle taxation law mentioned in the Motion I have put down on the Order Paper. I ask your Lordships whether anybody in his senses could argue to-day in favour of an unladen weight tax on any commercial vehicle.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

It is a most ridiculous thing. If you want to tax a motor vehicle by weight, the way to do so is to tax it on the payload it carries and not on the weight of the manufacturer's product. The effect of all this is, as it was in the case of the horse-power tax on motor cars, that the designer of the vehicles is out to cheat the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In former days it was a battle of wits between the draughtsman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as a battle between the draughtsman and those who concoct the regulations regarding design at the Ministry of Transport. Although there is no longer a battle against the horse-power tax, there continues a battle to beat the weight tax. What is the result of this battle? The manufacturers skimp their vehicles to get them into the lower weight category. I could tell your Lordships some horrible stories of how manufacturers tried to get the weight down so that the tax to be paid would be lower. So fine was the margin that on the weigh-bridge if the wind blew one way, so to speak, it was in one tax category, and if it blew another way, it was in another. The result of all this is to the detriment of our overseas markets. The one great complaint we have from overseas is that our commercial vehicles will not stand comparison with those of our foreign competitors as regards sturdiness of construction. We have it from Canada, from America and from Africa. Why is this? It is because the manufacturer must always have one eye on keeping his vehicle down to the unladen weight of three tons so that it can travel at 30 miles an hour. That is what he does.

The net result of all this is that the manufacturer uses lighter brake mechanisms, lighter springs and lighter-gauge material, right the way through; and in the end the export buyer says that that is no good to him. The producer in this country has then to build two models: one for the export market and another which will satisfy the home market. In terms of sales resistance, that is what we are suffering abroad. There are noble Lords who are as knowledgeable on this subject as I am who will say this is a great deterrent. It is indeed a very real deterrent. Let us not forget that we have to meet huge competition from America where these refinements of taxation do not arise. The sellers' paradise in the export market has gone, and we have to come down to these hard facts.

Now let me take the case of a typical commercial vehicle of a chassis price of£1,500 or£1,600, of seven or eight tons unladen weight. Because he has to build two models of this vehicle, it costs the manufacturer£200 more for the export model. This, on a vehicle of the price I have mentioned, is a great deal of money and can turn the scale. In other words, if he were allowed to produce one model for the home and the export market, his price would be somewhere in the region of about£170 to£200 cheaper—very likely the home market price would have to go up a little.

That is the competition factor; that is the cost factor. Another point is this. The 20 miles per hour limit puts an accent upon economy. The 20 miles per hour vehicle is designed to a schedule of about 16½miles per hour, whereas a 30 miles per hour vehicle is designed to a running schedule of somewhere in the region of 22–23 miles per hour. In our export markets, in Canada, in Africa and in South America, drivers will not drive these low-powered vehicles. They say the fatigue is too great. The heavy truck driver in Canada demands an engine in the vehicle he is going to drive of somewhere in the region of 160–180 horse power, and the proprietor who pays high wages out there is far more concerned with getting miles per driver than he is with getting miles per gallon. That is the competition we have to meet—and here we are, at the present time, being stultified.

We are the only country in the world, with the exception of (to be very accurate) the Transvaal, which to-day has a 20 miles per hour limit. Why? It is an anachronism, a relic of the past. There can be no argument—I am now dealing specifically with the export market—on the export case. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will agree with me that we cannot in the future afford to have this disincentive of price, quality and competitive value, however great a luxury it may have been in the past. I will cite to your Lordships what are stated to be the objections. The first one that will spring to everyone's mind is safety. All the uninitiated will ask: "Are you advocating that these huge juggernauts should go along the roads of this country at 30 miles per hour?" It is not the 7-ton, 8-ton, 9-ton and 10-ton vehicle with its load well within its carrying limit on the roads that is a danger. They are beautiful pieces of machinery, usually well kept, with servo-assisted braking, power-assisted steering and always running within the factor of safety. The danger on the roads of this country is the skimped vehicle of under 3 tons unladen weight, always grossly overloaded, and the brakes of which are never in a condition to pull it up. This is usually the type of vehicle which is the most ill-kept on the roads.

Some figures have been prepared by the Road Research Laboratory. A test was made with a 20 miles per hour vehicle travelling a hundred miles on a main trunk road in this country. It was passed 183 times by other commercial vehicles—a positive danger factor. I had to laugh when I heard the noble Earl in the course of an excellent speech say, with righteous indignation and speaking from a Ministry of Transport brief, "What is the good of making crash helmets compulsory when you cannot enforce the law?" What a tragedy, what a disgrace, to bring the law into contempt by not being able to enforce it! The Secretary of State, Lord Leathers, saw me smile. The Road Research Laboratory, from tests all over this country, say quite definitely—and one of the directors gave this evidence before the British Association—that 90 per cent. of the vehicles that are subject to a 20 miles per hour limit never, in fact, travel at 20 miles per hour, but always over. So what is the good of having a law that is brought into contempt like that?

May I submit another point to your Lordships? A double-decker bus carrying a live load (notoriously the worst load to carry) of fifty people, is allowed to travel at 30 miles per hour. A 3-ton vehicle with a load of 9 tons—and, my Lords, there are 3-ton unladen weight vehicles with loads of 9 tons—is allowed to travel at 30 miles per hour. A 3½-ton vehicle with nothing in it at all has to travel at 20 miles per hour. That sounds ridiculous to me. I do not know how it appeals to other noble Lords. Yet that is the position to-day. There is the safety factor, but the safety factor is just the other way about. Noble Lords who have knowledge of the huge fleets of some of our big concerns, maintained by their own maintenance staffs, know that they cannot afford to spend the huge amount of money in purchasing these very fine vehicles and not have them well looked after.

I hope the Secretary of State will not hide behind the skirts of the trade union movement, because I do not believe the trade unions in this country object to this proposal. Surely a British trade union is not going to argue that there must be a speed limit regulation so that it can enforce a wages and conditions of employment agreement. The two things are entirely divorced. Running schedules are negotiated between employers' representatives and employees' representatives. I am not asking the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, to have a regulation under Section 10 of the 1930 Act that a commercial vehicle "must" travel at 30 miles per hour. I am asking him to have a regulation saying that it "may" travelat 30 miles per hour. If the unions and the employers cannot agree upon revised running schedules—very well, then the vehicles do not run at 30 miles per hour; that is all. But my proposal would free the British manufacturer in the export market. That is all I am worried about. I am not asking the noble Lord to put into force a regulation that is going to force the unions to agree to something they do not want to agree to—nothing of the kind. That is right outside the whole question, and to drag it in would be to put up nothing more nor less than an alibi and an excuse which does not hold water. As I tried to illustrate the other afternoon when I was speaking to your Lordships on the Copyright Act, I maintain that in these matters there should be nothing which interferes with free negotiation as between employer and employee. I can quite conceive that if this uniform speed limit were adopted the employee would be better off. I have cited the case of Canada. The heavy duty vehicle driver will not drive a vehicle that keeps him down to the kind of tortuous nerve-wracking experience that your Lordships may have seen when travelling on the road to Scotland. Have you ever tried to get up Shap and had to pass about a hundred heavy commercial vehicles, grinding themselves out over that tortuous six or seven miles at 5 miles an hour, to the nervous and physical discomfort of the driver? This is the result of the law forcing these vehicles to have too small engines.

My Lords, trade union opposition to this proposal is a myth, and, as I have said, I hope that the noble Lord is not going to hide behind the skirts of the trade unions in this matter. I want a regulation introducing a universal speed limit. One of the greatest factors in safety is uniform speed. I have not attempted to make a case for greater efficiency in British industry; that has been well done outside your Lordships' House. But on this narrow point I know that I do not have to convince the noble Lord, as he is a good business man. We cannot afford to retard our export market; we must free from some of its disincentives this industry which has done such outstanding work. Therefore, my Lords, in that spirit, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper.

5.12 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, I should like to add my support to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I followed his remarks with great interest, and I certainly feel that an increase in the speed limit for heavy vehicles, which is, of course, bound up in this Motion, would undoubtedly increase the productivity of the country at the present time and would also assist our export trade. What really is the position at the present moment with regard to the transport operators? As it is now, these operators are compelled to work out their route schedules on the basis of 20 miles per hour, and therefore industry is provided with a slower and less efficient transport service than it need be. If the speed limit were raised, the cost of transporting goods by road would become less, and the consumers themselves would benefit; and, what is more, a greater tonnage of goods would be carried with the fleets available at the present time.

There is another very important factor, which has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; and that is the question of road safety. Your Lordships will remember that the Report of the Committee on Road Safety indicated that, having regard to improvements in braking equipment, they saw no objection on grounds of road safety to the increase of the speed limit of 20 miles per hour at present applicable to heavy goods vehicles. There is no doubt that overtaking is one of the greatest dangers on the road at the present time, in particular when one heavy vehicle travelling at 30 miles per hour tries to overtake another heavy vehicle adhering to the 20 m.p.h. limit. We know that that is happening every day on all the roads round the country. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned this point, but I did not hear the figures which he gave.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

They were that on a stretch of 100 miles upon one of our trunk roads a vehicle travelling strictly at 20 miles per hour was passed by 183 other commercial vehicles.

LORD TEYNHAM

That is quite right. It is also the fact that when the speed of this vehicle was increased to 30 miles per hour, the number of passings was, I believe, in the nature of only forty-two or forty-three.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Thirty-five, I think.

LORD TEYNHAM

It is clear that the raising of the limit to 30 miles per hour would undoubtedly eliminate very much overtaking and would increase the safety on the roads.

Another point of view which I think should be carefully examined (this was also touched on by the noble Lord) is a tendency to overload lighter vehicles, which is undoubtedly caused by this restriction of the speed limit. I believe that there are a number of firms who advertise such things as helper springs and body-strengthening devices in order to enable much lighter vehicles to carry heavier loads. That is a very dangerous practice indeed. I think it can also be shown that when these heavy vehicles are travelling at 30 miles per hour there are fewer gear changes to be made by the driver, and the actual fatigue of driving is less. It is also interesting to note, as the noble Lord also mentioned, that in other countries there are no speed limits for heavy vehicles. I believe that in the United States and Canada scheduled speeds are as high as 50 miles per hour. There is also the anomaly as regards passenger vehicles of seven or eight tons, which may travel at 30 miles per hour even in a built-up area.

What do the British Transport Commission say about this matter? On page 125 of their Report for 1951 they say: The continued restriction to 20 m.p.h. of modern goods vehicles that are well maintained and fitted with up-to-date and efficient brakes militates against efficiency and economy of vehicle operation. The Commission must know a good deal about road transport by this time. I think it is true that some sections of drivers have claimed that all the benefits from the proposed increase in speed should be passed on to them. It is clear that if this were the case there would be no advantage to the country in making any change, but I think we shall all agree that the men's earnings should not suffer, nor should drivers be asked to spend longer hours upon the road for the same wages as at present.

I think it is true to say that the present Minister of Transport and his predecessor have shown some hesitation in accepting the advice of so many responsible organisations owing to the reaction of the trade unions—this point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I cannot help feeling that a satisfactory arrangement could be made between the employers and the trade union. The noble Lord says that union opposition is a myth. I hope it is. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government can give some indication that such an agreement is in the process of completion. I would say, in conclusion, that the raising of the speed limit is desirable in the national interest, as it would ensure higher productivity, lower transport costs, help road safety, and also enable manufacturers to produce vehicles which would be better able to compete in the export market.

5.19 p.m.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I am delighted to have an opportunity to support this Motion. Before saying anything more. I would at the outset declare an interest. I am interested in the manufacture of the heavy commercial vehicle, but that does not prevent me, as an ordinary road user, from knowing a little about conditions on the roads to-day. I am sorry to have to say that Her Majesty's Government have not given the slightest attention to the position that is now developing upon the roads of this country. On many of our principal highways we are definitely arriving at stagnation point.

We have a higher density of traffic than any other country in the world—over eighteen vehicles per mile, I think, if my memory serves me aright. And, speaking broadly, with the exception of the elimination of "black spots" all major road improvement has ceased. Her Majesty's Government have given us no sort of idea how long that state of affairs is to continue. But with every day and every month that it continues the deterioration of the road position is getting more acute. The roads themselves are getting worse; the numbers of vehicles trying to get along them are increasing. Unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give consideration to this problem it will have repercussions on industry. Of that I am absolutely certain. It was stated by the Road Research Board—in 1951 I think—that 40 per cent. of the vehicles using the main traffic roads of this country are commercial vehicles. That stagnation is slowly coming many of your Lordships who have great experience and who drive regularly around the country will, I am sure, agree, and I beg Her Majesty's Government to give this matter their most earnest consideration while there is still a little time left.

We have listened to a forthright and emphatic speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He described this particular question of the 20 m.p.h. limit as an anachronism of the past. While he was speaking, I could not help wondering whether we really did have a Socialist Government from 1945 to 1951. And I could not help wondering also—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying this—whether, in fact, he impressed his point of view upon successive Ministers of Transport with the same emphasis that he has used this afternoon in addressing your Lordships. Perhaps he did.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, the noble Earl and I have known each other for forty years, I should think. Has he ever heard me say one thing contrary to what I have said across the Floor of the House this afternoon?

EARL HOWE

I am very glad to hear that; I am sure we all are. I am also sure that, whatever may have happened in the past, the noble Lord is now "as keen as mustard" to try to get this question of the 20 m.p.h. limit reconsidered. What is this limit imposed for? Will the noble Lord who is going to reply to the debate tell us? Is it imposed for reasons of safety, or is it just a sort of haphazard restriction, which was placed on traffic in the old days? The only valid excuse, it seems to me, for a restriction of this sort must be one that has something to do with public safety. There does not seem to be any point in having a 20 m.p.h. limit if it is not required in the interests of public safety. The Ministry of Transport, in their own publications and otherwise, have indicated that there is no objection to what is suggested by Lord Lucas on the score that it would affect public safety. Why, then, have we still got this restriction? Surely the Government ought to be able to say, "If it is not required in the interest of public safety, let us do away with it."

Then take the question of enforcement. Is it really a good thing, from the point of view of maintaining respect for the law in this country, that we should have a restriction which all the evidence goes to show is disregarded by the drivers of 94 per cent. of the vehicles affected? Surely that cannot be right. One of the principal troubles from which we are suffering in this country to-day arises from the fact that the law is to a certain extent regarded with disrespect—we know that in other connections. It seems to me that if this restriction is not required in the interests of public safety, if it is being disregarded wholesale, it cannot be a very good thing to have it still in force. Again, on the question of enforcement, surely it cannot really be necessary to have police cars hunting lorries, as they do, up and down A.5 and A.1, trying to detect whether drivers are exceeding the limit. Would the police not be more usefully employed in watching for cases of really dangerous driving than in trying to catch some humble lorry driver exceeding the limit of 20 miles per hour? It seems to me that it is silly to allow the present state of things to continue. Yet one can see the police doing this work every day. We cannot blame the police; it is their duty to enforce the law. The law is there, and it is the fault of Parliament if the law is wrong.

Now as to the number of vehicles affected. It has been estimated that about 94,000 vehicles are subject to this speed limit. As one who is engaged in the manufacture of such vehicles, I can assure your Lordships that every word which fell from the lips of Lord Lucas in this connection is only too desperately true. Trading conditions in the world are becoming much more competitive; and that applies especially to the heavy vehicle market. It is becoming much more difficult to sell our vehicles overseas. Yet all the time, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite rightly, encourages manufacturers to go into overseas markets—and we all know how desperately important that is—we have here something which makes it difficult for us to compete effectively. It forces us to produce for use in this country a type of vehicle different from the sort we should sell in any other country. That, I suggest, is another very obvious point against this restriction.

Reference has already been made in the debate to the appalling congestion on our roads, and everyone knows of its existence. Lord Teynham mentioned the matter of a small commercial vehicle trying to overtake one of the large, heavy lorries. Everyone who uses the roads knows well what happens in such a case. The result is an appalling congestion, with vehicles behind, waiting their opportunity to pass. And, very likely, just when the two vehicles concerned draw level something comes from the other direction; the vehicle trying to pass has to drop back, and the whole business has to begin over again. The roads are not getting bigger, and they are getting more and more congested. Stagnation, as I have said, is well on the way. If it were not for the magnificent way in which these heavy motor vehicles are handled on the roads, conditions would be far worse than they are. In my humble judgment—and my view is reinforced by many drivers of far greater experience than myself—the greatest gentlemen you can find on the roads today are the drivers of heavy commercial vehicles. Thank heaven for it! What is 20 miles per hour? It is a limit too silly for words. Just think of it for half a minute. At school sports the mile race is usually run, and won, at a speed of about 12 miles an hour. To impose a limit of 20 miles per hour on commercial vehicles is really too silly.

Further, it seems to me that it must be a very trying experience—indeed, I know it is—to drive these vehicles with very big loads within this limit, especially on the overcrowded and badly designed roads which some have to use. The natural speed is the sort of speed one wants to adopt. I suggest that the natural speed of one of these large heavy vehicles is something roughly in the neighbourhood of 25 to 30 miles per hour. That is the sort of speed at which it is suitable for them to travel. They can be driven at such a speed as that without risk of undue fatigue on the part of the driver. I think it was Lord Teynham who pointed out to your Lordships that far less gear-changing is called for in the case of a vehicle which travels at 25 to 30 miles per hour than with one driven within the legal limit of 20 miles per hour. The question of the passenger vehicle has been mentioned. A passenger vehicle can go at 30 miles per hour, and very likely it is larger and more cumbersome than the goods vehicle that is restricted to 20 miles per hour. Practically every organisation interested in road transport has supported the demand to do away with the 20 m.p.h. limit. In 1951, 200 Members of Parliament supported a Motion in another place to abolish it.

The question of wages and conditions has been mentioned. In 1948, the Wages Councils Act was passed, under which a Road Haulage Wages Council was set up, and I am perfectly certain that if there are any difficulties on the score of wages and conditions arising out of the doing away with the 20 m.p.h. speed limit, this Council ought to be able to straighten them out and see that everybody concerned gets a square deal. I hope that the Government will give most careful consideration to this matter. But I hope they will not stop at consideration: I hope they will act. I am certain that unless something is done, the conditions on the road, bad as they are already, will become considerably worse; and in the not too distant future. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the noble Lord and in congratulating him on bringing this Motion before the House.

5.32 p.m.

LORD LAWSON

My Lords, on this matter I cannot speak with that knowledge with which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, speak, but, as a simple pedestrian who has listened to these discussions on the wholesale killing of men, women and children on the roads and streets of this country, I have been astonished at what has been said. I rise to say only this to your Lordships. In face of the annual massacre of people on the roads, I think any Government would have to give a much simpler and more forceful defence of an increase of the speed limit in this country than has yet been given in this debate. I feel I must tell your Lordships that if a vote were being taken on this matter. I certainly would vote against an increase in the speed limit.

5.33 p.m.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, except for one dissenting voice, there seems to be remarkable unanimity in the Chamber this afternoon. I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in this Motion. I admit that I cannot forget that for several years, with all his persuasiveness, he could not persuade his own Government to put this proposal into effect, but that is no reason why he should not persuade the present Government to do so, and I sincerely hope that he will. There are at least four main grounds making the removal of the 20 miles per hour speed limit essential. The first is road safety, which is closely connected with the point of design and manufacture for export, which I count as number two. Thirdly, there is the reduction of the cost of articles manufactured for export, and fourthly, there is the reduction in the cost of living in this country. I should like to eleborate these points briefly.

In regard to road safety, the 20 miles per hour limit causes four main dangers. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, we find that the design of light chassis is totally unsuitable and unsafe for the loads they have to carry—chassis which, in any case, would not stand up to the work of any roads that have not the perfect surface ours have got. Secondly, there is overloading of vehicles which have already been too lightly built for the loads they are designed to carry. Thirdly, there is unnecessary passing on main roads of heavy commercial vehicles by light commercial vehicles, and, to my mind still more serious than that, the unnecessary passing on by-roads of heavy vehicles by private cars. We get a heavy vehicle going along at 20 miles per hour and a private car passing because it wants to travel at 30 miles per hour. It would be safe for both to do 30 miles an hour, and it is unwise for either to do over. Fourthly, a point which I do not think has been mentioned is the question of driver fatigue. I know of this from personal experience. I could have spoken from personal experience in the last debate. I did not, but this time I am going to do so in case the noble Earl, Lord Howe, should call me to order for not doing so. Speaking from personal experience, I would say that driving a heavy vehicle at 20 miles per tour is a most tiring job. If one drives it at 30 miles per hour, the fatigue is nothing like the same. It is not only a question of additional gear-changing. The steering is lighter and everything is easier.

Another point which I do not think many people have taken into account or thought about is the question of safety. If one is driving a modern vehicle with big pneumatic tyres at 30 miles per hour and a tyre bursts, it is not nearly so dangerous as a tyre burst at 20 miles per hour. That may sound an extraordinary statement, but it is an actual fact. If a tyre bursts at 20 miles per hour, the action it takes is so quick that unless the driver is ready and waiting for it, he has no time to grab his vehicle, but if he is travelling at 30 miles per hour, that speed just gives the initial velocity to the vehicle to enable him to grab it and hold on. That may be a point which is not generally recognised. I did not know it myself until I was told by a lorry driver who had experienced tyre bursts at both speeds. I think it is a point which should be remembered. There is another thing about the 20 miles per hour speed limit which, to my mind, is dangerous—that is, the effect on the mental attitude of the driver. He is sitting there more or less dawdling along. Mentally, he stops, counts the number of partridges he sees beside the road, watches the pheasants and rabbits, and sees anything except the road in front of him—he is tired to death of looking at that. His mind is not on his job. At 30 miles per how it would be, because it has got to be and he knows it.

So far as design and manufacture for export is concerned, that point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I think it is an obvious fact that no manufacturer can produce two articles designed to do the same job as economically as he can produce one. My final point is regarding the resultant reduction in the cost of articles for export and home consumption. I think it is fairly obvious that anything that can reduce the price of transport must have a great effect on the cost of any finished article. The removal of the 20 miles per hour speed limit—here I am rather going to join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—would permit increased wages to the driver and still make a material difference in the cost of transport. The driver could receive more for his extra production, and yet the extra production would show a material difference in cost to the manufacturer.

The time has long since passed when action should have been taken. This Government must not try to shelter behind the hypothetical opposition of unions. Employers and unions cannot be expected to spend their time arguing out new schedules of speed and new rates of pay on an increase of a speed limit that may never take place. Let the Government say that in four months' time—or whatever date they like, but let them make it as short as possible—the 20 miles per hour speed limit will be abolished. I am sure that if they do that, the unions and the employers will get together and thresh out their schedules and wages schemes, and at the end of four months they will be ready to start. The result will be that the cost of our transport will be reduced and the safety of our roads will be greatly increased. Above all, let us remember, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, that the lorry drivers of this country—and incidentally I may say that here I restrict myself to long-distance lorry drivers—are the finest drivers on the road to-day. They are the most courteous, the most helpful and the best drivers, and most of them work the longest hours. Those men have the interests of this country at heart just as much as we have. There may be a minority who want to save time—which they can do on the existing schedules at 20 miles per hour by exceeding the limit—and spend the time saved playing dominoes, but that is a very small minority to whom this Government, at least, should pay no attention—they would not get their votes, anyway. This job was funked by the last Government. We have now a Government who came in and said they were going to do un- pleasant things and make us do unpleasant things; and they said they were going to have courage in doing them. There is nothing unpleasant about this, and the only courage needed is the courage to stand up to any discontented Communistic voice that says: "Do not let us raise the limit, because if we do the men will have to work harder."

5.40 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I propose to be brief, because this subject has been fully covered by the previous speakers. I agree with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, and I fail to see how anybody, having listened to four speeches by noble Lords with great knowledge of road transport, could feel that any other course was right than to raise this speed limit for heavy vehicles from 20 to 30 miles per Hour. The argument on the export side is unanswerable. It is essential that our manufacturers should be able to produce a vehicle that is world-wide in use. I would say only one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I suggest that it is more a case of lighter and more expensive materials, such as aluminium, having to he used in these vehicles, which raises the cost, but does not necessarily make them, as he rather indicated, dangerous vehicles on the road.

There is no doubt that this 20 m.p.h. speed limit is an absolute anachronism. It was introduced at a time when brakes were an entirely different piece of mechanism from what they are now, and I am quite certain that there would be no ill-effects from the safety point of view if the speed limit were raised. Unfortunately, a large body of uninformed people remain unconvinced. One of them, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has spoken here to-day. I think he represents a body of people who argue quite fallaciously on the following lines. They say, "There are far too many accidents when these vehicles are going at 20 miles per hour; they would be very much worse if we let them go 10 miles per hour faster." The other argument put forward is this: "They have a limit of 20 miles per hour now, and they all go at 30 miles per hour: if you put it up to 30 miles per hour, they would all go at 40 miles per hour."

I mention this because one or two Members of this House have said that to me, and I know that a number of unthinking people take that view. I feel that the arguments put forward to-day by other noble Lords—I am not going to repeat them—blow that theory to pieces. If all commercial vehicles were allowed to proceed at 30 miles per hour there would be an orderly queue on the road; there would not be so much passing, and the law would be far easier to enforce. A policeman in a car or on a motor-cycle could see many miles ahead a vehicle which was getting out of line and passing others, and he would not have to tell what sort of vehicle it was, or what regulation it was under, because he would know that every commercial vehicle on the road had the same speed limit. I will not labour the point, because it has been well put by other speakers, but I am convinced that from all points of view, including that of safety, the raising of the speed limit would be a tremendous advantage.

5.48 p.m.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS)

My Lords, first of all, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having given us this opportunity to debate this most important subject. I would, if I may, go further and extend to him my personal appreciation of the clear and forthright way in which he has made all his points. I must say that my debt of gratitude in this matter would have been even greater if he had shown that same forthrightness during his period of office. I think one might justifiably ask why the noble Lord and his friends did not practise what they now preach. They had the opportunity, and the years rolled by. The noble Lord will forgive tile for making that incidental observation, because it is the true position.

This proposal to increase the speed limit has been before Governments for a long time. I remember having the same matter before me when I was Minister of War Transport in 1944. But at that time the road safety experts could not tell what the change would mean in the days to come at the end of the war. In matters of life and death it was quite understandable that the risks could not be taken. The result could be only a guess. But in my opinion the situation gained quite a new look when, in 1947, the Committee on Road Safety said that they had no objection to the proposal. The late Government then certainly started discussions with the two sides of industry to try to get agreement to the change. But perhaps I may be permitted to say that I do not think they proved themselves sufficiently vigorous in their discussions, or indeed courageous enough—this despite the fact that the political atmosphere was surely not unfavourable to the change.

There is little that I can or need add to what noble Lords have already said in favour of the proposal. So far as I am aware, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, there is only one other State in the world, the Transvaal, where they impose so low a speed limit as 20 miles per hour. That is no inducement for us necessarily to continue to follow such a lead. I do not think anyone would gainsay that thievery restrictive provision is a handicap to our motor manufacturers in their efforts to capture markets abroad. The noble Lord made that very clear, and I subscribe to all he said. The imposition of the law means that the home market demands in the heavier classes a vehicle which is under-engined for the higher speeds needed overseas. That is the crux of the whole position. Conversely, manufacturers, in their strenuous efforts to keep vehicles below three tons in unladen weight, produce lorries which are not robust enough for the exacting demands of the export market.

Again, so far as the speed limit of 20 miles per hour is observed, it means that an important adjunct of our industrial equipment is not being put to the best use. It means that time is being wasted and that transport costs are unnecessarily inflated. It adds to the cost of exports. In point of fact, it is common knowledge that this speed limit is frequently disregarded. In a recent survey—and this has been partly referred to already—the Road Research Laboratory found that only per cent. of the vehicles concerned were travelling at or below the legal maximum, and that no less than 38 per cent. were travelling at over 30 miles per hour. Obviously this is a deplorable state of affairs. It brings the law relating to road traffic into disrepute. None of us, I am sure, would wish to criticise the police for this. They do their best—and in the circumstances it is a very good best—to enforce a law the difficulties of which are obvious. Indeed, it might almost be said that the time of the police could be spent on better—or perhaps I should say worse—things.

Now a word about road safety. One factor is the great technical advance made in recent years, particularly in brakes, which makes most modern heavy vehicles as safe at 30 miles per hour as the older ones were at 20—or safer. There is also the point that greater uniformity of speed between different types of vehicle would tend to reduce the amount of overtaking, which on our crowded roads is often a source of danger. I am told that when in 1948 Mr. Barnes took soundings in this matter, objections to the proposal on grounds of safety were received from a number of organisations. I certainly do not pretend that the arguments are entirely one way. There may well be some road safety factors which still tell against the uplifting of the limit. For example, we agree that pre-war lorries would still have to be subject to the lower limit. A much smaller number of vehicles—probably well under a quarter of those now subject to the limit—would be affected. The police would be able to distinguish them because they would still carry the familiar "20" plate at the rear. I have not heard this point mentioned to-day but it is a fact that there is this quite formidable number of lorries built, I should think, around and before 1942, which would not be equal to the higher speed. We must be careful to protect that position so that we do not fall into a trap.

But when one balances it all up, it is our view that considerations of road safety need not hold up the change, and in this we are fortified by the view expressed by the Road Safety Committee in 1947. What then has delayed the carrying out of this proposal? It is well known—it has been mentioned this afternoon—that the stumbling block has been the attitude of the employees in the industry. The drivers fear that the change would lead to a reduction in their earnings, and they are not prepared to accept the change willingly until they can be sure that their interests in this matter are adequately safeguarded. Negotiations between the two sides of the industry began nearly six years ago, but so far no conclusion satisfactory to both sides has been reached. This is the position which faced the last Administration.

I think your Lordships would acquit me of any charge of generally making Party points. But I cannot on this occasion resist pointing out that, during all their years of office, the Party opposite failed to come to grips with this deadlock between the two sides of the industry. There was this stalemate. Why did they not get hold of some of the pieces on the chessboard and move them into more useful positions? I myself feel that this failure to reach agreement between employers and employees was largely due to the fact that they were dealing with a rather vague and uncertain situation in those early times. There was no certainty that the change was going to come about. The discussions, therefore, went on in an atmosphere of unreality. I believe that if Parliament had made the change, the negotiating machinery between the two sides of the industry would have acted effectively, and that a reasonable and satisfactory solution would have been found. The change in the speed limit can be made by the Minister of Transport by regulation, but the regulation must be approved by an Affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament. It would be a thousand pities if, on a Resolution of this nature, there were a cleavage along Party lines. For this reason, I now propose to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, two questions.

My first question is this. May we take it that he is the official spokesman of his Party on this occasion, and that the terms of his Motion represent the official view of his Party? My second question is: If my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport were to introduce the regulation, may we take it that the noble Lord's Party would support the necessary Affirmative Resolution, both in this House and in another place? I hope that when the noble Lord comes to speak in a few moments he will be able to say, "Yes." But if, perchance, he feels that he cannot commit himself immediately, then I do at least hope he will be able to convey to meat an early date that something along these lines may go forward. I need not say what enormous help it would be if the noble Lord were to use his powers of persuasion on his own Party and its supporters, so that he can come back and assure me, and all on this side, that their support would be available for this purpose, Then the affair would wear an entirely different complexion. If that were to happen, employers and employees would surely resume discussions with a new spirit.

We realise, of course, that there would be a number of practical points to be settled. We should therefore propose to make the regulation effective only as from a date some little way ahead. These old vehicles have to be catered for, and it will take a little time to have the right adjustments made. But even so, the industry would be working in a much more realistic atmosphere, and I feel sure that both sides of the industry would find that they could settle the industrial questions which have so far held up re-arrangement. In respect of so many of the present vehicles I think it would be a blessing for everyone once this thing could be settled on those lines. For the moment, the difficulty still remains that employees in the industry have not been able to agree, and we must be ready to bring agreement about by way of settlement before we can move at all.

6.0 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and flattered that he himself should have come down to make it. I cannot claim to stand here to-day and put the official view of Her Majesty's Opposition. I based my Motion upon the fact that it had nothing to do with any outside matters. It is for the Government to govern; and if the Government increase the 20 m.p.h. limit to a 30 m.p.h. limit, whether or not the employers and employees reach agreement on the schedules has nothing to do with it. The noble Lord cannot place upon me the responsibility of government, any more than he can place upon me the responsibility for quite a number of things which happened when the Party to which I belong were in office.

The noble Lord suffers from one great political disadvantage: he came into politics on the high level. He should have started at the bottom: he should have been a Parliamentary Secretary. If the noble Lord had had that experience he would have come to the conclusion that it is a very sobering experience. One of the difficulties in which the noble Lord finds himself is that you cannot negotiate in a vacuum. I agree with the noble, Lord on all the points he has raised. There are the factors of pre-war vehicles to take into consideration. My Motion was upon the narrow subject of lifting this regulation now, for the sake of removing a disincentive to our export trade—a disincentive which the noble Lord agrees is a real one. I am going to make the noble Lord an offer. Let us at least make some progress in this matter. Do not let us go on talking about it: let us do something. If the noble Lord, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, will call a conference with Her Majesty's official Opposition to discuss this matter, we shall be only too happy to take advantage of it and see whether we can arrive at some conclusions. The noble Lord could not have made my case better than he did. He is in agreement with everything I said. When this matter was debated on the last occasion in another place there was practical unanimity, and I feel certain that, if the noble Lord will call this conference, we shall be delighted to do what we can to remove deterrents to our future in the commercial vehicle export market. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.